4 ms·

The big idea is that boys and girls, especially at high school age learn/are motivated in fundamentally different ways so splitting them and teaching them in di

The big idea is that boys and girls, especially at high school age learn/are motivated in fundamentally different ways so splitting them and teaching them in different ways could be more effective. That is all very well, but where do the hermaphrodites go?

tinco 13y ago
I don't know, that's a good question. Perhaps to where they feel most safe? Or perhaps in which learning style they most fit in? The question also reveals the imperfection of the solution. What of the boys who identify as male, but think/learn/are motivated more like girls are? And vice versa? If we were thinking purely in terms of effectiveness, we would instead devise a test that would determine which teaching style would best suit you. But then these boys would likely be a small minority in girls classes, would that lead to social problems for them? Would it be preferable to just go to a boys class for them?
- VLM 13y ago
  "Or perhaps in which learning style they most fit in?" This brings up the nightmare scenario where in the name of equality, by law girls are not allowed to compete (including sports?) and boys are not allowed to learn by discussion / cooperation. Given the fixation my educators had on forcing more or less all male EE and CS students to do group labs and group programming projects and group discussion in class and group participation grades, and implementing grade inflation such that your grade is pretty much your attendance record and there's not much point in competing, by the theory that girls can only learn socially not competitively then all male establishments are already doing everything they can to make life harder on the men and easier on the women, short of the proposals like outright segregation "separate but equal" and all that.
  - tinco 13y ago
    That is indeed a nightmare scenario. In The Netherlands at the end of elementary school there is an aptitude test that high schools base their admittance on. This is a nationwide system, with 3 levels of education. The highest level is a 6 year long education that grants you automatic admittance (except for some number-limited fields) to any university. Note that even if you get a score that only gives you admittance to the lowest level of education you can still get into any university by taking a few years longer and finishing the other levels as well. Anyway, my best friend in elementary school was always in extra classes because of his supposed special intellectual ability. I feared very much that if I didn't score well at the aptitude test he'd go to a school I wouldn't be able to go to. Luckily I did score well and was admitted to the highest level, but I can imagine this system could smash dreams.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
derleth 13y ago
> That is all very well, but where do the hermaphrodites go? Wonderful question. Really. I just have two things which will make it more effective: 1. The preferred term is 'intersex' now. I know, but using the word everyone else is using makes people less likely to get angry. 2. Transsexual people are a broader category of people who will be impacted by what you bring up. The number of people who are born with an indeterminate sex (intersexed, that is) is a lot smaller than people with gender dysphoria, or feeling like they've been born into a body of the wrong sex. Trans people are still a minority, but they're a larger minority, and a more vocal one, so people are more likely to care about them. It's not the way things should work, but it's the way they do work.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  I was being purely biologically functional rather than asking the question in terms of the broader gender groupings and social terminology because it provides the stronger point. When you get into gender, the argument can still be forced into a binary perspective by not getting much further than agreeing that some boys can be like girls and some girls like boys. If you are forced to take into account the full spectrum of physical biology however, it becomes obvious that the issue is far more fundamental than the social labelling. Biology is messy and doesn't care much for people's ideas on exclusive differences.
  - derleth 13y ago
    > When you get into gender, the argument can still be forced into a binary perspective by not getting much further than agreeing that some boys can be like girls and some girls like boys. Except if you do this, you can't really say you're segregating by gender or by sex. You have to say you're segregating by learning style, which isn't what the article's about.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      True, from a perspective that accepts that arguments where gender is different from sex are valid (which I do). I am aware however that not everybody agrees with that viewpoint and so I went with something that is much harder to deny as it does not rely on accepting other people's opinions of what goes on inside their own head, but can be directly observed instead, which makes it much harder to bullshit around. edit - what I am essentially getting at, I guess, is that I don't think that using a more inclusive argument would have made the argument stronger. It would have made it nicer, but not more effective. Those who already agreed with the point will applaud it even more if it is couched in their preferred terms, but those who disagree will either get put off by the language or try and argue about the definition of the group, which is much easier despite being larger, precisely because it is not as well defined.

tinco 13y ago

I don't know, that's a good question. Perhaps to where they feel most safe? Or perhaps in which learning style they most fit in? The question also reveals the imperfection of the solution. What of the boys who identify as male, but think/learn/are motivated more like girls are? And vice versa? If we were thinking purely in terms of effectiveness, we would instead devise a test that would determine which teaching style would best suit you. But then these boys would likely be a small minority in girls classes, would that lead to social problems for them? Would it be preferable to just go to a boys class for them?

VLM 13y ago
"Or perhaps in which learning style they most fit in?" This brings up the nightmare scenario where in the name of equality, by law girls are not allowed to compete (including sports?) and boys are not allowed to learn by discussion / cooperation. Given the fixation my educators had on forcing more or less all male EE and CS students to do group labs and group programming projects and group discussion in class and group participation grades, and implementing grade inflation such that your grade is pretty much your attendance record and there's not much point in competing, by the theory that girls can only learn socially not competitively then all male establishments are already doing everything they can to make life harder on the men and easier on the women, short of the proposals like outright segregation "separate but equal" and all that.
- tinco 13y ago
  That is indeed a nightmare scenario. In The Netherlands at the end of elementary school there is an aptitude test that high schools base their admittance on. This is a nationwide system, with 3 levels of education. The highest level is a 6 year long education that grants you automatic admittance (except for some number-limited fields) to any university. Note that even if you get a score that only gives you admittance to the lowest level of education you can still get into any university by taking a few years longer and finishing the other levels as well. Anyway, my best friend in elementary school was always in extra classes because of his supposed special intellectual ability. I feared very much that if I didn't score well at the aptitude test he'd go to a school I wouldn't be able to go to. Luckily I did score well and was admitted to the highest level, but I can imagine this system could smash dreams.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

derleth 13y ago

> That is all very well, but where do the hermaphrodites go? Wonderful question. Really. I just have two things which will make it more effective: 1. The preferred term is 'intersex' now. I know, but using the word everyone else is using makes people less likely to get angry. 2. Transsexual people are a broader category of people who will be impacted by what you bring up. The number of people who are born with an indeterminate sex (intersexed, that is) is a lot smaller than people with gender dysphoria, or feeling like they've been born into a body of the wrong sex. Trans people are still a minority, but they're a larger minority, and a more vocal one, so people are more likely to care about them. It's not the way things should work, but it's the way they do work.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
I was being purely biologically functional rather than asking the question in terms of the broader gender groupings and social terminology because it provides the stronger point. When you get into gender, the argument can still be forced into a binary perspective by not getting much further than agreeing that some boys can be like girls and some girls like boys. If you are forced to take into account the full spectrum of physical biology however, it becomes obvious that the issue is far more fundamental than the social labelling. Biology is messy and doesn't care much for people's ideas on exclusive differences.
- derleth 13y ago
  > When you get into gender, the argument can still be forced into a binary perspective by not getting much further than agreeing that some boys can be like girls and some girls like boys. Except if you do this, you can't really say you're segregating by gender or by sex. You have to say you're segregating by learning style, which isn't what the article's about.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    True, from a perspective that accepts that arguments where gender is different from sex are valid (which I do). I am aware however that not everybody agrees with that viewpoint and so I went with something that is much harder to deny as it does not rely on accepting other people's opinions of what goes on inside their own head, but can be directly observed instead, which makes it much harder to bullshit around. edit - what I am essentially getting at, I guess, is that I don't think that using a more inclusive argument would have made the argument stronger. It would have made it nicer, but not more effective. Those who already agreed with the point will applaud it even more if it is couched in their preferred terms, but those who disagree will either get put off by the language or try and argue about the definition of the group, which is much easier despite being larger, precisely because it is not as well defined.