That first person created no valid arguments or presented any thesis as to what they were trying to prove. All they did was use big words for no reason and just made their argument confusing and unclear, presented depictions of deity’s and claimed them as intersex, which doesn’t prove anything; and made large assumptions about images of Satan like depictions or other Diety like forms and their relevance to transgenderism. There was no use of unbiased text which provides more assertive evidence to what they claim. They quoted a rock band artist as if we should acknowledge and accept their ideas. They then attempt to use Baphomet as evidence for the validity of transgenders. How can we use a made up diety like Baphomet who has a goat head and wings to provide validity to transgenderism? Why is it that we must assume the epicenity of deities is proof for transgenders. Gods and demons aren’t human they are metaphysical, so how can we use metaphysical deities as evidence for physical and natural people? How can anyone who opposes this rhetoric take these arguments seriously. It seems to me instead of trying to show people how they may be wrong. It would seem you are rather trying to justify your beliefs. Someone please reply and discuss with me. Hopefully Harvard doesn’t delete my comment. And I mean all this with all due respect.
Her essay isn’t intended to prove a point. It is intended to provoke thought and conversation around language, art, religion and how the images used in those arenas may intersect with politics, and society in general.
@@henryconner780 no problem. I think most of us are inclined to see lecturing as an attempt at asserting facts. But on this sort of stage, it isn’t so much about “right and wrong”, it’s about discussing theories, philosophy, etc. if you’re simply entering the conversation with your mind made up, looking for someone to debate and disprove, then there’s no point in your participating.
@@vintageworship8549 for sure. I still think a lot of what she says IS her trying to prove something or make some sort of claim but the foundation of the claim is somewhat lost. I said this in my original post. She doesn’t provide things to enable us to think about what they may mean she presents things tells us what they mean and why they are significant. She clearly is trying to prove, or at least make a claim how deities that existed for a long time resemble some type of transgender or LBTQ ideology. The reason I disagree with her notions is because the claims she makes are an extreme stretch, and rather than providing good examples she uses pictures and quotes from seemingly random ppl to help prove her claim. If she studied this you would hope there is something or some claim she is trying to convey.
@@henryconner780well, I'd agree that every author holds and poses some form of bias. But I'm not sure exactly what you're objecting to here. I don't know if I would agree with everything the speaker is saying, but I'm not sure it is relevant. What I gained from the lecture was that imagery and iconology have a powerful effect on culture and social psychology... that, for example, if your culture presents images of demons as being dark and those who are good as light colored, then it can have a powerful subconscious impact on how a society responds to people who are dark or light skinned... Or that if mythological beings that are considered evil are also portrayed having similar characteristics to LGBTQ+ or intersex people, while people belonging to those categories do not have equal representation in those cultures or where their presence is not normalized, it is easy to see how the mythical icons depicting them in cultural lore would impact how society may view those people. I don't think the speaker is blatantly claiming that this is the case in every instance, but rather pointing out the consistency of these sorts of depictions in mythological imagery and iconography.
That first person created no valid arguments or presented any thesis as to what they were trying to prove. All they did was use big words for no reason and just made their argument confusing and unclear, presented depictions of deity’s and claimed them as intersex, which doesn’t prove anything; and made large assumptions about images of Satan like depictions or other Diety like forms and their relevance to transgenderism.
There was no use of unbiased text which provides more assertive evidence to what they claim. They quoted a rock band artist as if we should acknowledge and accept their ideas.
They then attempt to use Baphomet as evidence for the validity of transgenders. How can we use a made up diety like Baphomet who has a goat head and wings to provide validity to transgenderism?
Why is it that we must assume the epicenity of deities is proof for transgenders. Gods and demons aren’t human they are metaphysical, so how can we use metaphysical deities as evidence for physical and natural people?
How can anyone who opposes this rhetoric take these arguments seriously. It seems to me instead of trying to show people how they may be wrong. It would seem you are rather trying to justify your beliefs. Someone please reply and discuss with me. Hopefully Harvard doesn’t delete my comment. And I mean all this with all due respect.
Her essay isn’t intended to prove a point. It is intended to provoke thought and conversation around language, art, religion and how the images used in those arenas may intersect with politics, and society in general.
@@vintageworship8549 I see, thank you
@@henryconner780 no problem. I think most of us are inclined to see lecturing as an attempt at asserting facts. But on this sort of stage, it isn’t so much about “right and wrong”, it’s about discussing theories, philosophy, etc. if you’re simply entering the conversation with your mind made up, looking for someone to debate and disprove, then there’s no point in your participating.
@@vintageworship8549 for sure. I still think a lot of what she says IS her trying to prove something or make some sort of claim but the foundation of the claim is somewhat lost. I said this in my original post. She doesn’t provide things to enable us to think about what they may mean she presents things tells us what they mean and why they are significant. She clearly is trying to prove, or at least make a claim how deities that existed for a long time resemble some type of transgender or LBTQ ideology.
The reason I disagree with her notions is because the claims she makes are an extreme stretch, and rather than providing good examples she uses pictures and quotes from seemingly random ppl to help prove her claim. If she studied this you would hope there is something or some claim she is trying to convey.
@@henryconner780well, I'd agree that every author holds and poses some form of bias. But I'm not sure exactly what you're objecting to here.
I don't know if I would agree with everything the speaker is saying, but I'm not sure it is relevant. What I gained from the lecture was that imagery and iconology have a powerful effect on culture and social psychology... that, for example, if your culture presents images of demons as being dark and those who are good as light colored, then it can have a powerful subconscious impact on how a society responds to people who are dark or light skinned... Or that if mythological beings that are considered evil are also portrayed having similar characteristics to LGBTQ+ or intersex people, while people belonging to those categories do not have equal representation in those cultures or where their presence is not normalized, it is easy to see how the mythical icons depicting them in cultural lore would impact how society may view those people. I don't think the speaker is blatantly claiming that this is the case in every instance, but rather pointing out the consistency of these sorts of depictions in mythological imagery and iconography.