Professor Boots Student from Class for Saying There Are Only Two Genders
“referred him to the public university’s Academic Integrity Board”
The progressive left’s views on gender are not compatible with science. We covered this story in a recent quick take but more details have become available. A student named Lake Ingle was recently ejected from a religion class by a feminist professor for arguing that biologists only recognize two genders.
To make matters worse, the professor wanted Ingle to apologize to the class and to her personally.
Caleb Parke reports at FOX News:
College student kicked out of class for telling professor there are only two genders
Lake Ingle, a senior at the university, said he was silenced and punished by IUP Professor Alison Downie for questioning her during a Feb. 28 “Christianity 481: Self, Sin, and Salvation” lecture.
After showing a 15-minute TED Talk by transgender ex-pastor Paula Stone Williams discussing the “reality” of “mansplaining,” “sexism from men,” and “male privilege,” the professor asked the women in the class to share their thoughts. When no women in the class said anything, Ingle spoke up, challenging the professor on biology and the gender wage gap.
He told the class that the official view of biologists is that there are only two genders.
The feminist professor booted him from class and asked him not to come back. She referred him to the public university’s Academic Integrity Board (AIB). Ingle needs to complete the class to graduate at the end of the semester.
“You are barred from attending this class in accordance with the Classroom Disruption policy,” IUP Provost Timothy Moerland told Ingle in a March 2 letter.
Ingle described the incident on the Tucker Carlson show last night:
The professor may end up regretting her actions in this case. FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has gotten involved.
Grace Curtis reports at the College Fix:
Free-speech group warns university it can’t punish student for saying there are two genders
A male student barred from class for “significantly disrupt[ing] the learning process” may have simply been expressing a viewpoint, making his punishment “highly inappropriate,” according to a free-speech group.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education takes a skeptical view of Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s stated rationale for punishing Lake Ingle, who has become a cause celebre for suppression of conservative beliefs this month.
His professor reported him to the provost’s office after Ingle shared his views in a class discussion on gender-related issues that reserved comments for females first.
“The classroom in particular must remain a place where ideas are free to be challenged and debated, no matter how deeply held,” Ari Cohn, director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program, told The College Fix in an email.
While the free speech issue is certainly an important one, I am more concerned about the fact that this professor is demanding students deny reality or face punishment. There are only two genders.
When scientists look at ancient human remains, they can take one look at the pelvic bones of a skeleton and determine if the person was male or female. They do not say, this person was born male but became female or vice versa.
Your gender is a scientific fact which doesn’t change no matter how you identify or how many people agree with you.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The transgender issue is so chillingly Orwellian.
That’s the whole point if it.
You think leftist leaders give a crap about ‘transgender’ people? They’re using them, and they’ll be the second ones killed in a leftist genocide (right after us) if these freaks ever gain absolute power.
http://www.nra.org
Obama DOJ Forced FBI To Delete 500,000 Fugitives From Background Check Database:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/15/doj-fbi-fugitives-background-check-database/
You got it!
It’s all about “Disruption!”
But we are on to their pure evil ways. Time to Disrupt those evil ones.
Oh, and that student should sue everyone involved at that “school.”
It has ALL happened before! This Eugenics philosophy thing. It sounds so “gentle”, this killing…..I certainly hope I never become one of these “Lebensunwertes Leben”…..oh! You don’t remember the “Lebensunwertes Leben”? You don’t remember the past? Well, you are on the road to repeat it. Because this ALL happened before, the old, the sick, those in “pain”…..all became the “Lebensunwertes Leben”….”The Life Unworthy of Life”……look it up…google it…..
The first of the “Lebensunwertes Leben” were the people in pain and the “erbkraken” – those with congenital, cognitive, and physical disabilities like the feebleminded, the epileptic, the schizophrenic, the manic-depressive, the cerebral palsyed, those with muscular dystrophy, the deaf, the blind, the weak, and the insane.
Then, up next were the degenerate’s and the homosexuals.
After that they came for the idle and the dissident’s.
Then they came for the prisoners, the Roma (Gypsies), the Slavs, and the other peoples of color, and finally, they came for the Jews.
Yes all of the above started out as the “Lebensunwertes Leben”….”The Life Unworthy of Life”…who became the “Untermensch”, the “Subhuman Creatures”, the “Lesser Men” and it all started with the people in pain….it has all happened before! – https://www.facebook.com/audax1954
According to Joy Behar and her fans, the list should include the billions of “mentally ill” Christians.
There are ONLY two SEXES, Male and Female. Determined by Nature, confirmed by Science (Chromosomes)! Gender is a matter of ProNouns and Preference!
Our Schools have lost their collective minds!!!
People do not have “genders”. “Gender” is not a synonmym for “sex”.
Yes, gender is synonymous for biological sex, and it always has been. It’s nice that you linked a little blog, but gender has referred to biological sex in people for centuries.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
There are actually three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter. It’s nothing to do with people, though.
Thank you! There are two SEXES.
Actually there are more than two sexes (intersex is the most common after m/f, but then there are more genetic variants after that), but sadly you also seem to have swallowed the Leftist disinformation about gender. It has always been synonymous with sex.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
It’s disheartening to see this happen on the Right and is a testament to the extent of Gramscian damage.
It really is a shame to see such misinformation posted on non-leftwing sites.
Gender has been synonymous with sex for centuries. Yes, even in people.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
You’re over-bothered on this. Even the hair splitters drawing the distinctions aren’t fooled. We know what they’re trying to do and we’re not having it.
Well, if concern for factual accuracy is “over-bothered”, then I have a hard time feeling guilty about it.
You either push back against Leftist memetic devices, or you internalize them as we see here.
And every day that goes by, we’re one day closer to the day all cis gender white males are banned from public colleges.
The only way they’ll be let in, is if they “identify” as a non-binary creature of some sort.
Ever notice how progressives are violently anti-science unless it is their version of science
A fetus is not a human
There are 100’s of different genders
Vaccines cause autism
GMO is dangerous
GW is caused by man (mann’s) emission of CO2
There was no MWP
We live in interesting times. Twenty years ago, a student claiming that there are more than two genders might have been laughed out of class.
Wonder what has changed?
The father of all lies has found a home in academia.
Gender is not a biological concept, so biologists are not qualified to comment on it. Sex is purely a biological phenomenon, and there are only two sexes, even though not everyone fits neatly and unambiguously into one of them. Those who don’t are not a third sex, they’re simply malformed, just like those born with missing hands or whatever.
Gender, however, is a new term as applied to people. It used to apply only to words, not people, but now a new use has been found for it; when applied to people it refers to how they think of themselves. That is something that happens only in their own heads, and since the only way to know what someone else is thinking is to ask them and take their word for the answer, science cannot say how many genders there are on any given day.
Telepaths could tell, but they don’t exist. So like pain, gender remains strictly self-reported; just as we rely on asking people “on a scale of one to ten, how much pain are you feeling today?”, we must also rely on asking people, “on a scale of one to twenty-seven, how male are you feeling today?”.
I’m going to take issue here, but only in a minor way. Gender *is* a binary biological concept, but gender *identity* is a giant can of worms with many causes and shades.
It falls along the same lines as self-worth, pride, contentment, freedom, and happiness in that GI is an internal concept, kept and developed by an individual which may or may not be affected by external stimuli. (As an example, many prisoners of conscience in a dictatorship are more free than their fellow citizens walking around under the guns of the dictator’s thugs.)
You are both incorrect, Gender and sex were interchangeable until the left needed a word to try and justify mental illness and delusion.
You are either Male or Female, anything else is delusion.
No, Gremlin, they were not interchangeable. Until about 25 years ago “gender” in people was not even a concept. “Gender” was a term that applied only to words, not to people. Nobody cared how male or female or whatever other people felt, so there was no word for that feeling.
When leftist academics decided that what sex a person is doesn’t matter, all that matters is what they feel like, they needed a word for that feeling, so they started using “gender”, specifically to distinguish it from “sex”, which is a biological concept, i.e. real and objectively determinable, and therefore not vulnerable to their games.
“Gender” was not considered in people until 25 years ago? That’s patently absurd. Again, please correct yourself.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
Yea, my 20+ years in the medical field says you are wrong.
Georgefelis, “gender” is not a biological concept at all. There is nothing physical you can point to and say that is gender. Gender in humans is an identity, a feeling, and therefore not only can it change at any time, but we have no way of knowing whether someone is telling the truth about their “gender”.
The correct approach is not to dispute how many genders there are in humans but to dismiss the entire concept. It’s an invalid term, just like “patriarchy”, “privilege”, “intersectionality”, and all those other neologisms that don’t map to anything in the objective universe. You can feel male, female, both, neither, or like a princess, Napoleon, a pony, or a lamppost; so long as you’re not a danger to yourself or anyone else that’s none of anybody else’s concern.
I know it sucks to attach yourself to an idea as if it is true, but given the fact that you’re repeating a falsehood, I feel compelled to correct you. Gender has always been synonymous with sex. The attempt to separate the two concepts began about the time you claim the two managed to converge.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
You’re simply incorrect and repeating a lie that first appeared in feminist literature about the time they claimed gender never referred to sex. This is, of course absurd as it has referred to sex in literature, science, government classification systems, and common discourse for centuries.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
Please adjust your argument accordingly.
Your own source says:
Oops.
Your own source says:
In other words, everyone knew the rule that “words have gender; people have sex”, but they started humorously applying “gender” to people, trusting their audience to understand that they meant “sex” but were too polite to say so, in the way that parodies of Victorian ladies have them refer to a table’s “limbs” instead of its “legs”.
As for the trait that “gender” is used for nowadays, I suppose it’s always existed but until recently no word was needed for it, because nobody cared about it. It didn’t matter whether a man felt male or a woman felt female; they were anyway, and that was all that mattered. Only when leftist academics set out to undermine the whole concept of objective reality, by elevating feelings above objectively determinable facts, did they need a word for “what sex a person thinks they are”, and settled on “gender”.
“In other words” you’re deliberately omitting highly relevant parts of the quote that disprove your thesis.
“The “male-or-female sex” sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for “sex of a human being,” in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.”
Emphasis mine.
Now you’re leaving out important parts of the definition that invalidate your thesis and supports Milhouse’s.
“c. 1300, “kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits,” from Old French gendre, genre “kind, species; character; gender” (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) “race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,” also “(male or female) sex,” from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle’s Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. The -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)).
Gender is a vague word that simply meant category or type, and referred to the shared characteristics or traits among everything or anyone that can be categorized. That it ALSO included sex traits that differentiate men from women isn’t surprising considering we still use the French word genre to describe types of architecture or literature that share certain traits. It is nowhere near as specific as actually using the word sex, which is why sex remained the preferred word because both words were understood to mean the physical or biological characteristics that made one male or female. And since that’s what people meant, it was better that they just go ahead and say so.
And no one attempted to seriously apply it to human beings until the mid-1950s, if you consider sociology and psychology serious fields of study, that is.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-9932-5
“Abstract
Many psychologists, particularly feminist psychologists, have drawn a distinction between the term sex and the term gender. The purposes of this paper were to review the history of this distinction and to illustrate the varied and inconsistent ways in which these terms are used. Historically, this distinction began with John Money and his colleagues in the 1950s (Money et al. 1955a, b, 1957); they used the term sex to refer to individuals’ physical characteristics and the term gender to refer to individuals’ psychological characteristics and behavior. Two decades later, Rhoda Unger (1979) argued that the widespread use of the term sex implies biological causes and promotes the idea that differences between women and men are natural and immutable. She proposed the use of the term gender to refer to traits that are culturally assumed to be appropriate for women and men. Her work was influential in prompting a widespread shift from the use of the term sex to the use of the term gender in psychological texts. Nevertheless, current definitions of sex and gender vary widely. Some authors use the terms interchangeably. Of those who distinguish between the terms, most construe gender as more related to cultural influences and sex as more related to biology. There are numerous inconsistencies in authors’ definitions, however. Additionally, in some cases, there appears to be a mismatch between how researchers define sex or gender and how they measure it. It seems likely that the distinction between the term sex and the term gender may become less meaningful and important over time.”
The noun “sex” still has a definite meaning. Gender does not, even as late as 2011 when this paper was published. Gender remains a vague word today just as when we first borrowed if from the French. Frankly, the vagueness of the word as applied to human beings is why feminists like to use it. It doesn’t actually mean anything in that context.
Replying to Arminius since the system won’t allow me to do it directly.
Hardly. I originally offered the link as entirely supportive of my thesis. I saw no need to quote the full text as it is readily available. I still don’t see a need and only quoted the most relevant in response to Millhouse.
I think you’re confusing “vague” with words that have multiple meanings. In this sense, “sex” also “simply” refers to a “category or type”, so you fail to make a significant distinction here.
[Emphasis Mine.]
Regardless which word was preferred, it doesn’t change the synonymous relationship between the two.
[Emphasis mine.]
Which I did not. If I did, then my thesis could easily fall apart, but you seem to acknowledge its validity in the part two quotes above that I bolded. The fact that both fields are heavily dominated by Leftists shouldn’t go unnoticed. Given the Left’s penchant for tendentiously warping the language, I find it a little silly (and concerning) to suggest that sociologists and psychologists are somehow linguistic arbiters.
In this odd sense of “vague”, since sex has additional meanings and – as a noun – is more than a categorical term than gender is, then sex is more “vague” than gender. Context is everything. That’s how language works when it hasn’t been purposely manipulated. I’m certain you’d understand me perfectly if I said, “I believe gender equality is an important topic in politics today.”
Any confusion that results from such a usage (like my “gender equality” comment above) is a result of linguistic manipulation by Leftist ideologues. That’s why feminists use it, not because it is vague.
Gender also applies to things. For instance, English speaking peoples traditionally refer to warships (or ships in general) as “she.” Other nations, such as Russia, referred to warships as “he.” It used to be that named storms used to be referred to only with female names.
But people are not things. We only have two sexes, not two or more genders. Applying the term gender to people, or animals, is sloppy thinking if we wish to be charitable, irrational if we wish to be accurate.
Just to pipe up as one who studies anthropology with a focus on ancient humans, the pelvis is actually an imperfect indicator of gender due to how badly damaged they often are when found, the best bone to use to determine gender in humans and human-ancestors is actually an intact femur due to the valgus angle, girls have one, boys do not, and damage to the bone itself will not replicate a valgus angle.
This bit of scientific nitpickery is brought to you by courtesy of Bones, Stones, and Human Evolution (one of the best class titles evuh)
You mean sex, not gender. You can tell the girls from the boys, i.e. the only two sexes that exist in all mammals, indeed all higher animals, by examining the femur.
This is not nitpicking. The left understands perfectly well that if it can hijack the language it can sow confusion, then take advantage of that confusion.
” Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
Josh Sugarmann, gun grabber, in 1988 when he founded the Violence Policy Center to advocate for gun confiscation. Assault rifle is a type of firearm with an actual definition. It’s a select fire weapon (i.e. capable of automatic fire) that uses an intermediate power cartridge (the rifle that set the pattern was the Strumgewehr 44 which used a shortened version of the 7.92x57mm, the 7.92x33mm Kurz [short]) and a detachable box magazine. So the gun grabbers came up with the meaningless term “assault weapon” which can include anything the gun banners wish to include in the category.
It worked. Unfortunately even gun owners and manufacturers use assault rifle and assault weapon interchangeably. Like people now use sex and gender interchangeably. These terms are not interchangeable, one isn’t even a legitimate term but a made up grab bag category of weapon. All this sloppiness works to OUR destruction. If you’re a conservative. We can not play along with the left’s manipulation of language and let them set the terms. We always lose.
I could go on with other examples (submit to the left’s demand that you refer to people correctly termed by law as illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants” if you want to play into their hands as anti-immigrant and racist) but there’s one example of an argument we lost because the left got to define the terms. It’s when conservatives conceded the linguistic high ground and started to refer to marriage between a man and a woman as “traditional marriage.” As soon as that happened we were guaranteed gay marriage. Because that was conceding that marriage between a man and a woman was simply one form of marriage instead of the only form of marriage.
Gay marriage has long been a goal of feminists. I was aware of it back in the mid-80s when I was in college. Feminists then as now view marriage and stay-at-home motherhood as inherently oppressive and a major obstacle to equality between the SEXES. So they set about to destroy marriage. To do so they had to put nails in the coffin of the idea that procreation and raising children was central to the idea of marriage and that marriage created the optimal conditions for having and raising children. They wanted to completely divorce the idea of marriage and having children. They wanted to make it heresy to say that any one arrangement was better than any other arrangement. Single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation, polyamorous relationships, were just as good for children and less oppressive to women then old, outdated marriage.
What better way to destroy the association of marriage with procreation then insisting that marriage could also include gay couples, who are biologically incapable of procreating with each other? A leading Norwegian feminist “public social scientist” (yes, they have those in tiny Scandinavian countries where they’re desperate for celebrities) wrote an article titled “Empty Marriage” in Dagbladet, a leading liberal newspaper in Norway, in 1993 as their legislature debated gay marriage. She was triumphant. She argued that the fact the legislature was debating the issue at all was a sign of the weakness of the institution of marriage. It proved that feminists had largely emptied marriage (hence the title of her article) of any meaning and that gay marriage would be the final nail in marriage’s coffin.
It isn’t as if these people have been shy about what their true goal was all along. Of course, they lied and said gay marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage and in any case it wouldn’t effect the marriages of straight couples anyway. How do I know it was a lie. Because when these feminists thought they were among friends they said the opposite. These were still public events if you could stand sitting through a feminist presentation. And once they got gay marriage they said it more openly. They didn’t want to strengthen marriage, they wanted to destroy it, and of course that was going to effect everyone’s marriage.
And conservatives played right into their hands by adopting their preferred term for marriage between a man and a woman. “Traditional marriage.” They didn’t get it. If you’re old enough to remember “New Coke,” Coca Cola didn’t start referring to the old formulation as “Coke Classic” until an alternative Coke was on the shelves.
The left is quite open about hijacking the language. They focus group terms to see what plays best to the low information voter. They write books about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Blue-Book-Essential-Democratic/dp/147670001X?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=147670001X
“The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic Paperback – June 26, 2012
by George Lakoff (Author), Elisabeth Wehling (Author)”
Lakoff is a retired US Berkeley linguistics professor and an extreme lefty; notice the allusion to Mao? He’s written other books about how leftists can “frame” political debates to get votes. And by “frame” I mean mislead voters like Josh Sugarmann and the gun grabbers came up with the term “assault weapon” into thinking an AR-15 is a machine gun.
Do not use gender and sex interchangeably unless you want to go to gender identity reeducation camp for wrongthink.
there are 3 genders:
male
female
mentally ill
pick one. 😉
LOL, this college is screwed, F.I.R.E. is not known for losing.
The part that bothers me the most is how the Left continually condemns conservatives and others for being anti-science. They complain that anyone who is not from the Left does not support science or understands science as though everyone else is just plain stupid. As proof, they cite isolated cases when a conservative says something stupid and then expands that to include all who are not a member of the Left.
>
The reality of the situation is that the Left is filled with crackpots and bizarre ideas that are not based in real science. When you disagree with them, they get angry and claim they are citing science. This is largely the stance that created global warming and Obama made it far worse by hiring only those who believed in it into leadership positions and had the NSF and others demand you accept global warming as a given before you would be funded to show how whatever affected it.
>
How bad has this mental illness gotten? I and my collegues have had multiple cases of freshman students telling us, their freshman chemistry professor, that we are stupid and do not understand science because we do not support global warming as described by the Left.
Memo for TG’s: Regardless of your preferred gender du jour, if your bones are exhumed by archaeologists in 100 years and subjected to forensic testing, here’s what they’ll determine:
“Biological male [or female]. Surgically mutilated, probably due to a bizarre religious ritual.”
Mother Nature always has the last word–and the last laugh.
What school was this? That’s what I wanted to know. “IUP” googles to “Indiana University of Pennsylvania.” Right. Who knows, maybe in such a place “normal” space/time/biological rules don’t apply.
Well, it did start out as a Normal school.
Oh, come on, who would down-ding that?
After the student is litigated back into the classroom, what is the next step after he receives a failing grade? He needs the class in order to graduate; are they preparing to be able to sue the professor over a failing grade?
I suspect that in this case, for this individual student and unlike for the rest of the class, the grade will NOT be just an award for regular attendance.
So, basically, the student needs to teach the class.
They’re in Indiana, but they identify as Pennsylvanians. Or vice versa.
I watched Tucker interview this young man last night, of course I was incensed at the injustice of the whole sad story. I would like to see the obviously unstable Alison Downie dismissed, I am also hoping that maybe, just maybe, Tucker will finagle a job for Lake.
Here is a link to a blog that she wrote.. I just can’t imagine this person as a professor, she seems to be so easily and viciously triggered … but, judge for yourselves if you are interested (HT Tom Ciccotta of Breitbart) :
https://feminismandreligion.com/2018/01/10/sunday-shaming-by-alison-downie/
If that link disappears..cough cough.. somebody thoughfully archived it:
https://archive.fo/c2uoE
Poor woman (that’s not supposed to be a gender construct).
I hope she can find it in her heart to forgive G-d.
Can’t they just identify as graduates?
This crap will continue until the opposition to it gets their own clarity.
People do not have “genders”. Only things have genders. (And there are three of them — masculine, feminine, and neuter.)
People have a sex, not a gender. Words or other objects have a gender. People have typically either male or female sex, with very rare cases of intersex.