The Gender Debate

Puk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
156
Yep, notice how they put "subjective" in front of the word "gender". That's not science. Science is always, always objective. You've just given yourelf the citation you asked me above. As for these "subjective genders", well that means I can subjectively identify as a post-modern transgender porcupine attack helicopter if I wanted to. Absolute rubbish. Science, ie. objectivity in research and the ability to repeat an experiment and arrive at similar results, is the ONLY true measure of gender and sex (synonyms) available. Psychology is subjective. "Gender studies" is subjective. It's only good old traditional human anatomy, genetics and physiology that counts. And they maintain: There is only a biological MALE and a BIOLOGICAL female (if you're human). Unless you're a seahorse or a jellyfish. Which is entirely your choice... Seahorses are lovely. Hardly anyone would find your ID as a small marine Echinoderm strange.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
8,306
Because you cannot definitively or typically define someone who isn't XX or XY as how they express phenotypically may vary.
And those people are intersex, which is a genetic anomaly due to a number of reasons. The most prevalent effect of mosaicism is due to trisomy, which is an abnormality. Like we have discussed here and in the Caster Semenya thread for months, and months.
 

Puk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
156
Because you cannot definitively or typically define someone who isn't XX or XY as how they express phenotypically may vary.
Wrong, unfortunately. Someone with an XY chromosome will always have predominantly male phenotypical expression. Yes, the expressions may vary because there is not one human being who is an exact replica of another on earth. Nor was there ever.
 

Puk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
156
And those people are intersex, which is a genetic anomaly due to a number of reasons. The most prevalent effect of mosaicism is due to trisomy, which is an abnormality. Like we have discussed here and in the Caster Semenya thread for months, and months.
Correct. However those with an XX chromosome as the last pair will always have predominantly female anatomy, physiology and genetics. Same with XY. There may be anomalies in phenotypical expression - such as higher than average testosterone for a female, or estrogen for a male. But then the other identifying variables such as biochemistry, anatomy and genetics will always point to either a MALE or FEMALE gender/sex (synonyms). You can test this in the most rudimentary of clinics.
 

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
3,209
Wrong, unfortunately. Someone with an XY chromosome will always have predominantly male phenotypical expression. Yes, the expressions may vary because there is not one human being who is an exact replica of another on earth. Nor was there ever.
Agree to disagree on the male phenotypical expression and I wasn't referring to an exact replica but the expression itself.
 

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
3,209
And those people are intersex, which is a genetic anomaly due to a number of reasons. The most prevalent effect of mosaicism is due to trisomy, which is an abnormality. Like we have discussed here and in the Caster Semenya thread for months, and months.
Except when someone has two different sets of cells genetically. The expression cannot be predicted which was my point.
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
Shame. Maybe you should write some scientific articles with your own point of view?
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,537
Yep, notice how they put "subjective" in front of the word "gender". That's not science. Science is always, always objective. You've just given yourelf the citation you asked me above. As for these "subjective genders", well that means I can subjectively identify as a post-modern transgender porcupine attack helicopter if I wanted to. Absolute rubbish. Science, ie. objectivity in research and the ability to repeat an experiment and arrive at similar results, is the ONLY true measure of gender and sex (synonyms) available. Psychology is subjective. "Gender studies" is subjective. It's only good old traditional human anatomy, genetics and physiology that counts. And they maintain: There is only a biological MALE and a BIOLOGICAL female (if you're human). Unless you're a seahorse or a jellyfish. Which is entirely your choice... Seahorses are lovely. Hardly anyone would find your ID as a small marine Echinoderm strange.
Have you actually studied science and the philosophy of science at all? Science is most certainly not always objective, and not even necessarily empirical. (And the social sciences are most certainly part of "science").

Read up a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
 

Puk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
156
Have you actually studied science and the philosophy of science at all? Science is most certainly not always objective, and not even necessarily empirical. (And the social sciences are most certainly part of "science").

Read up a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Yes, I have actually. M.Sc. Registered scientist. One thing we're taught in YEAR ONE is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Try Elsevier, Science (the Journal) or any other subject-specific journal. "Social sciences" are not real sciences. I know the left-leaning crowd believes it is and holds every second study on "gender" up as "proof" of their radical, blue-haired ideologies.

Fact is, one can't study abstract concepts and then expect the next researcher to replicate results - it will be different each time. In other words: Not objective, Not Proven and Not Scientific. Gosh, this is High School science / biology: The Scientific Method. That method can not be applied to abstract ideas of 50+ genders.

Although it's called "social science" (for some obscure reason), it was never, is not and will never be real science.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,964
Yes, I have actually. M.Sc. Registered scientist. One thing we're taught in YEAR ONE is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Try Elsevier, Science (the Journal) or any other subject-specific journal. "Social sciences" are not real sciences. I know the left-leaning crowd believes it is and holds every second study on "gender" up as "proof" of their radical, blue-haired ideologies.

Fact is, one can't study abstract concepts and then expect the next researcher to replicate results - it will be different each time. In other words: Not objective, Not Proven and Not Scientific. Gosh, this is High School science / biology: The Scientific Method. That method can not be applied to abstract ideas of 50+ genders.

Although it's called "social science" (for some obscure reason), it was never, is not and will never be real science.
Social science is at most scientific when they pose hypotheses, conduct some research, then either fail to reject the hypothesis, or reject it.

But, that doesn't happen often. What tends to happen is that they come up with a theory and then do their best to find proof of this theory.

Soon, with attitudes in academia becoming increasingly liberal, trying to conduct research that MIGHT disprove this theory becomes impossible. You won't get funding, and even if funding is not an issue, you won't get published.

People think this is conspiracy theory stuff but it happened recently. Someone studied how mathematical ability is distributed across the sexes, and found that like most things, while the average is the same, males tend to have more outliers. There are more genius male mathematicians than female genius mathematicians, but also more male mathematical retards than female mathematical retards. Of course, despite there being good evidence for this, it offended a feminist, who got her daddy involved to get the research suppressed. True story, not making this up, can find the link if an SJW doubts me.

So anyway, imagine if there was a "social scientist" who found a way to "disprove" gender theory? He would never get published at all. The scientific merit of his work would not even be examined - because it would not be politically correct, it would be dead in the water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Puk

Puk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
156
Social science is at most scientific when they pose hypotheses, conduct some research, then either fail to reject the hypothesis, or reject it.

But, that doesn't happen often. What tends to happen is that they come up with a theory and then do their best to find proof of this theory.

Soon, with attitudes in academia becoming increasingly liberal, trying to conduct research that MIGHT disprove this theory becomes impossible. You won't get funding, and even if funding is not an issue, you won't get published.

People think this is conspiracy theory stuff but it happened recently. Someone studied how mathematical ability is distributed across the sexes, and found that like most things, while the average is the same, males tend to have more outliers. There are more genius male mathematicians than female genius mathematicians, but also more male mathematical retards than female mathematical retards. Of course, despite there being good evidence for this, it offended a feminist, who got her daddy involved to get the research suppressed. True story, not making this up, can find the link if an SJW doubts me.

So anyway, imagine if there was a "social scientist" who found a way to "disprove" gender theory? He would never get published at all. The scientific merit of his work would not even be examined - because it would not be politically correct, it would be dead in the water.
I agree. I've seen this happen, too. A professor of mine (in South Africa, of all places) did a very thorough study on the minute differences in hominid skulls. In his research, he included extant human races (gasp!). The fact that he touched on race was bad enough, but when he illustrated (quantitatively) that the differences aren't quite as minute as we thought - not a single journal would publish his article.

Science only led to progress in the past when it was not hindered by any external influences - that includes politics. One can argue about ethics, but when scientific ethics itself is corrupted by political ideas, you end up losing knowledge by the rejection of research that does not comply with how others view it.

In the distant past, even the most radical studies (think Darwin and his idea of natural selection) were allowed to enrich our knowledge of the world. Today, Darwin's views are no longer taboo. Just imagine if that information never saw the light of day... We would be far behind in our understanding of the natural world. Or there would be numerous "heretics" who would suggest it, but never be published or acknowledged.

Back to the humanities (or "social sciences"): Here's an extract from an article in the Scientific American (published seven years ago):

"Every softer discipline these days seems to feel inadequate unless it becomes harder, more quantifiable, more scientific, more precise. That, it seems, would confer some sort of missing legitimacy in our computerized, digitized, number-happy world. But does it really? Or is it actually undermining the very heart of each discipline that falls into the trap of data, numbers, statistics, and charts? Because here’s the truth: most of these disciplines aren’t quantifiable, scientific, or precise. They are messy and complicated. And when you try to straighten out the tangle, you may find that you lose far more than you gain."

Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/humanities-arent-a-science-stop-treating-them-like-one/


There is tangible concern in the scientific community about this trend. It is not that scientists have no respect for the humanities, it is just that the humanities have their own unique place. A qualitative place. They challenge ideas to make people think. True scientists have no objection to whether their hypotheses are proven incorrect. They don't consciously steer their research in a direction they think will be favourable - they deal with the conclusions of each study as information that goes a little further to help us understand certain concepts. This information that has to be shared so that other scientists can improve on it or at least replicate the same results. That is the quantitative place of a scientist.

Now, all the SJW's out there, if you've read this far - can you see the difference now? Gender studies = qualitative. Hard science = quantitative.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
8,306
People think this is conspiracy theory stuff but it happened recently. Someone studied how mathematical ability is distributed across the sexes, and found that like most things, while the average is the same, males tend to have more outliers. There are more genius male mathematicians than female genius mathematicians, but also more male mathematical retards than female mathematical retards. Of course, despite there being good evidence for this, it offended a feminist, who got her daddy involved to get the research suppressed. True story, not making this up, can find the link if an SJW doubts me.
You should read up into transgender medicine and how the WHO arbitrarily changed classifications of this issue.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
8,306
I agree with you. The whole Grievance Studies affair was a huge commentary on the state of our scientific community, and your post echos a lot of their concerns too. When raising it here though, it was met with silence, or derision.

Welcome to MyBB. Really enjoy reading your posts.
 

Arksun

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,499
Social science is at most scientific when they pose hypotheses, conduct some research, then either fail to reject the hypothesis, or reject it.

But, that doesn't happen often. What tends to happen is that they come up with a theory and then do their best to find proof of this theory.
First things first, right off the bat, dead wrong. Firstly, in science you cant formulate a theory without proof. If you formulate a theory and then look for proof, you dont have a theory - you're still stuck with a hypothesis.

Secondly, in science they dont look to prove a hypothesis. They look to disprove it. All good and honest legitimate scientists on this planet, when formulating a hypothesis, tries to prove themselves wrong. As they conduct experiments and research into their hypothesis to prove themselves wrong, only when the evidence they find supports their hypothesis do they have themselves a theory.
 
Last edited:

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
8,306
This has been raised here a number of times before.


It comes as no surprise then that population-based studies have demonstrated sex-related differences in personality and preferences that are independent of social influences. When social influences are weakened (in more egalitarian societies such as the Nordic countries of Europe), the sex-related differences in personality and preferences actually increase (the opposite of what one would expect if men and women were wired in an identical fashion). This suggests that as environmental pressures become relaxed, innate sex-specific preferences surface.
Historical data suggests that about 0.5% of children develop gender dysphoria—distress caused by a perceived incongruence between one’s biological sex and gender presentation. Reinforcing studies in the medical literature show that, as children get older, childhood-onset gender dysphoria resolves (i.e. ends) in most cases. As two authors put it in a 2016 International Review of Psychiatry article, “the conclusion from these studies is that childhood GD [gender dysphoria] is strongly associated with a lesbian, gay or bisexual outcome and that for the majority of the children (85.2%; 270 out of 317 [studied individuals]) the gender dysphoric feelings remitted around or after puberty.”

Yet instead of offering counseling, medical professionals now are commonly telling children that they may have been “born in the wrong body.” This new approach, called “gender affirmation,” makes gender dysphoria less likely to resolve, pushing children down the path toward irreversible medical and surgical interventions. If aggressive transition options are pursued early in puberty, the combination of puberty-blocking drugs, followed by cross sex hormones, will result in permanent infertility.
This was an interesting graph for me:

716955

There is a 30% overlap between the sexes in terms of personality traits.
 

Aquila ka Hecate

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
4,970
This has been raised here a number of times before.






This was an interesting graph for me:

View attachment 716955

There is a 30% overlap between the sexes in terms of personality traits.
Yes. The other name for "gender identity" is "personality".
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,964
I feel like more people need to read your link. A prominent gender theory scientist admits he made it all up.

@Claymore, your opinion please.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,964
Yet instead of offering counseling, medical professionals now are commonly telling children that they may have been “born in the wrong body.” This new approach, called “gender affirmation,” makes gender dysphoria less likely to resolve, pushing children down the path toward irreversible medical and surgical interventions. If aggressive transition options are pursued early in puberty, the combination of puberty-blocking drugs, followed by cross sex hormones, will result in permanent infertility.
I find this to be the most galling and most terrible. Vulnerable children who need help, are having their lives ruined.

I have heard of multiple cases of people who had sex reassignment surgery only to realise they were never in the wrong body. In one case, a female transitioned to a man, and then many years later, realised that she felt uncomfortable in her body after being molested. So, instead of actually getting her counselling to help her deal with her molestation, they transitioned her and made her problems ten times worse. People should go to jail for this stuff.

I don't judge transgender people - I pity them. I think they are being used by the left, in a proxy culture war. Decades from now, the transgender people will wonder why their lives are so terrible, and realise they were never in the wrong body at all.

Imagine you are going through a difficult childhood, and now they give you drugs which block your natural puberty from occurring and prevent you from ever having a normal life. And remember, we are still talking about children here. These children cannot legally drink alcohol or drive cars - they are not entrusted with the decision making surrounding that. Yet we give them drugs that will permanently alter their bodies.

History will call the professionals who work in transgender clinics monsters.
 
Top