It bothers me to see how many people are saying stuff like “I thought Bill Nye was supposed to be the science guy, he’s buying into this SJW cuck libtard stuff! Science says there are only two genders!” in response to Bill Nye covering gender and sexuality on Bill Nye Saves the World.
…Like, did they even listen to what he said? Have they read any peer-reviewed literature about the subject? Is their understanding of “gender” limited to a middle school understanding of X and Y chromosomes? Bill Nye addressed chromosomes, hormones, genitalia and secondary sex characteristics when talking about how some of us don’t fit into the male/female sex dichotomy, and brought up psychology and neuroscience when talking about gender and its difference from sex, and also sexuality. The actual science of sex, gender and sexuality across the animal kingdom and across human behaviour is far more interesting than “lol nope science says there are only two genders.”
It honestly makes me angry when people say “lol I thought this was about science” whenever a scientist says something about topics like gender, sexuality, climate change or evolution that annoys someone. You can’t just pretend science is on your side when your understanding of science is based on a grade school textbook.
Also, why is it only gender people seem to have a problem with? Yeah, basic school textbooks will talk about XX and XY chromosomes and the male and female reproductive system, but they’ll also talk about how humans have five fingers on each hand and how the eye works when everyone knows some humans are born with six fingers on each hand or born blind. Textbooks will talk about how our body metabolises fats, but nobody would say “lol no sorry science says otherwise” at someone (like one of my secondary school classmates) who had a rare disorder who couldn’t metabolise fats. We accept that sweeping statements about human biology are generalisations. Sure, there are limits - no humans have wings or feathers, that would go against science - but we all accept some level of human diversity outside the basic-level textbooks - diversity that’s described well in the advanced medical textbooks. So why is it people only apply this logic to gender and not other differences in human biology?
I think part of it could be the backlash against postmodern nonsense which suggests everything is opinion and science is no more objective than art, which is a blatantly anti-science attitude. But the idea that sex, gender and sexuality aren’t totally binary isn’t just postmodern gender theory, it’s actual science with empirical evidence to back it up.
Anonymous said: An IT imagine where reader is Bill’s older sister and Richie has a MASSIVE crush on her. She has a pretty bad reputation ( kinda like Bev, but worse. Like done things with Henry Bowers, etc. ) Plot can be up to you! Just maybe a scene where she’s all sassy and this kinda represents why Richie likes her so much?? Thank you. Love your writing so much!
After the passing of your brother, Georgie, all you ever felt was grief. It followed you like a shadow every where you went. And frankly, you wanted it to piss right off. Over the months that your youngest brother had been missing and - in many eyes - presumed dead, you’d grieved in a way that worked for you.
You’d heard all the insults before: ‘Whore’, ‘Slut’, ‘Ash-head’, ‘Chimney-breath’. The list went on, and somehow you’d learnt to live with it. Some of the things people said about you were rumours, but majority wasn’t. You were only fifteen, but had gained a name for yourself all over the town. As many would say, the list of the people you’d fucked, the amount of cigars you smoked during the day would cause a brand new pen to run out of ink before the list was even near finished.
Long story short, you’d gained a pretty bad reputation for yourself over the course of seven months. Although, the person you once were was still there; buried underneath miles and miles of stone walls you’d built around yourself. Only a selected few were able to see this. Those who could be bothered seeing you for who you really were and not the stupid status you’d made for yourself due to the consequences of grief.
I hate that trope of characters who are like “oh being poor doesn’t scare me” like okay I’ve been financially unstable and lived in an economically depressed area most of my life and it scares the daylights out of me bc I know some of the consequences
like…this isn’t about how hard I’ve had it bc there’s loads of people who had it much harder, it’s about the fact that I /hate/ when people who have never really experienced financial hardships bad enough to compromise their ability to afford basic necessities romanticise poverty as somehow ~simple and ~wholesome in contrast to the ostensibly exhaustingly complex lifestyles of the rich
it’s not simple it’s complicated and difficult and can severely impact your mental and physical health and making it seem all rosy-tinted is just another way for rich people to make themselves feel better about wealth inequality