It does make sense why some people, like me, don’t like mpreg or trans in a sexual sense. But, that does not warrant any hostility from me about the matter.

That’s the key difference. Just leave people to their thoughts and desires.

(July 19, 2020, 4:25 am)doubleintegral

(July 17, 2020, 5:21 pm)orta03 Nope.  I'm sorry, you can't just redefine gender like that.  Sex or gender dynamics took millions of years of evolution to refine and is the backbone of human interaction.  You can add to it for the existence of transpeople, sure.  A transwoman or transman who have sufficiently transitioned can be considered members of their preferred gender(Male or Female).  And yes, the science of this matters.  Or are you saying science doesn't matter if it doesn't align with your beliefs?  Aren't you kinda doing the same thing anti-vaxxers do?  I don't mean to be rude but, this kind of thing irks me.

Actually, much of the recent science says that "sex" and "gender" are two terms that should no longer be used interchangeably, as we have done for a long time.  Once you can start to understand the difference between the two it begins to make a lot of sense.  It requires that you challenge some long-held beliefs, but at the end of the day that's basically what science asks of you: risking what you think you know in search of the real truth.  You can't have the latter without doing the former.

I don't consider social science with its somewhat questionable track record to be a definitive source for the nature of gender dynamics.  We aren't born as blank slates, only influenced by our environment.  Some of our nature is dictated by genetics and hormones.  In fact, there was a recent article, that detailed how transmen began to exhibit typical male behavioral tendencies when on testosterone therapy.  I'll link it if I find it.  The reason we can somewhat de-link gender from sex now is because advances made in technology and medicine make that possible.  In less developed societies gender norms are quite present.

I’d say @orta03 is right. Stuff like ART, IVF, and gender reassignment are luxuries most common in the Western/Modern World. That is an undisputed fact. Honestly, people in less developed, more traditional societies have plenty more issues than we do. Sure, we aren’t perfect either but it’s vital to understand proportionality.

It’s better that we strive to be perfect though. That meaning all related fields of science are respected in this and not just social sciences. Biology, biochemistry, and anatomy have plenty of a role just like psychology and sociology do.

This is something I take into account in my criminology field every single day. It’s usually a combo of many things and not one “prime-mover”, if that analogy can be applied here as well lol.

(July 23, 2020, 1:23 pm)orta03 I don't consider social science with its somewhat questionable track record to be a definitive source for the nature of gender dynamics.

Please explain re: the questionable track record of social sciences. Honest question.

Quote:The reason we can somewhat de-link gender from sex now is because advances made in technology and medicine make that possible.  In less developed societies gender norms are quite present.

Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're right and we're wrong. Other societies, regardless of how developed they are, may have oppressive governments that forbid the acceptance of transsexuals. Others may predominantly practice a religion that forbids it (along with many more benign things). In some cases, it's both.

(July 23, 2020, 7:51 pm)doubleintegral

(July 23, 2020, 1:23 pm)orta03 I don't consider social science with its somewhat questionable track record to be a definitive source for the nature of gender dynamics.

Please explain re: the questionable track record of social sciences.  Honest question.

Quote:The reason we can somewhat de-link gender from sex now is because advances made in technology and medicine make that possible.  In less developed societies gender norms are quite present.

Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're right and we're wrong.  Other societies, regardless of how developed they are, may have oppressive governments that forbid the acceptance of transsexuals.  Others may predominantly practice a religion that forbids it (along with many more benign things).  In some cases, it's both.

Social science despite having science in the name isn't a science. You cant quantify happiness after all. 

I don't think its automatically invalid despite being a social science but when you read like something below it just makes the idea that Ah yes science tells us x y z all the more dubious.  

Or when you see something like the science says gender is a social construct and is simultaneously  realized by the individuals sense of self. 


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

(July 23, 2020, 7:51 pm)doubleintegral

(July 23, 2020, 1:23 pm)orta03 I don't consider social science with its somewhat questionable track record to be a definitive source for the nature of gender dynamics.

Please explain re: the questionable track record of social sciences.  Honest question.

Quote:The reason we can somewhat de-link gender from sex now is because advances made in technology and medicine make that possible.  In less developed societies gender norms are quite present.

Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're right and we're wrong.  Other societies, regardless of how developed they are, may have oppressive governments that forbid the acceptance of transsexuals.  Others may predominantly practice a religion that forbids it (along with many more benign things).  In some cases, it's both.

Social "science" (ALL of their fields try to avoid the rules that makes the Natural Sciences as valuable and accurate as they are) is pure propaganda at best to the tyrants anvil at worst.
If you have the ability (no matter how piss poor it is) to try and blur the lines between something as fundamental as a person's sex, of course you're going to be more accepting of them.

You know, @"THISISFUNNY" . I find some irony in your defense of your views. Unrelated for sure, but why show so much concern? I don’t feel inclined to go out and berate these people to obscene lengths. Maybe you are because you might enjoy being a “edge-lord”, if that is still a term.

Empathy might be a better option. After all, we are still human. And if social sciences were truly useless in their nature, then I’d be out of a job lol. Sorry bud, but qualitative study occurs in the natural sciences just as much as it does for social sciences. There’s a reason why we have quantitative and qualitative to choose from, or to use both at the same time.

“Pure propaganda” just gives me that whole vibe of the InfoWars archetype from you. Ironically, you’re victimizing yourself without having any reason for it. Sure, free-speech must always be preserved. It is necessary. However, politeness and respect should always be offered in order for reasoned dialogue. I have seen plenty of both emotional and reasonable responses. But yours just have a mocking undertone.

Continue if you must, but the hypocritical irony might be more “funny” for me than it is for you.

(July 23, 2020, 8:39 pm)ebola-chan https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n...180956426/

From the article:

“This project is not evidence that anything is broken. Rather, it's an example of science doing what science does,” says Christopherson. “It's impossible to be wrong in a final sense in science. You have to be temporarily wrong, perhaps many times, before you are ever right.”

Scientists, even in the "hard" sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) have gotten plenty of shit wrong throughout the years. I will agree that a more qualitative field like psychology will have trouble reaching unimpeachable quantifiable conclusions. That doesn't mean that the field of psychology is not science, nor is it a waste of time, nor is it a failure. It just means that studies like the one you linked need to be done more often. There is always room for improvement in our understanding.

(July 23, 2020, 11:44 pm)doubleintegral

(July 23, 2020, 8:39 pm)ebola-chan https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n...180956426/

From the article:

“This project is not evidence that anything is broken. Rather, it's an example of science doing what science does,” says Christopherson. “It's impossible to be wrong in a final sense in science. You have to be temporarily wrong, perhaps many times, before you are ever right.”

Scientists, even in the "hard" sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) have gotten plenty of shit wrong throughout the years.  I will agree that a more qualitative field like psychology will have trouble reaching unimpeachable quantifiable conclusions.  That doesn't mean that the field of psychology is not science, nor is it a waste of time, nor is it a failure.  It just means that studies like the one you linked need to be done more often.  There is always room for improvement in our understanding.

Psychology isn't a science but Id hardly say its a waste of time, however I do believe they have been turned into a joke or mockery of what it used to be. You have something like "Toxic masculinity" being a mental illness nowadays.  

Just that pretending that there's  actual science behind things like Gender identity is incredibly suspect when the people in support of it themselves say basically its non quantifiable. 

Its like a sketchy marketing ad where they show a bar graph and make it look like 50% more people support something because 90% of its obscured. 

Really though I think the gender identity stuff is besides the point. 

Even if they were right it doesn't really explain the issue away that made people care about this issue to begin with.

(July 24, 2020, 12:44 am)ebola-chan Psychology isn't a science but Id hardly say its a waste of time, however I do believe they have been turned into a joke or mockery of what it used to be.

Psychology is literally the science of individual behavior and the mind. Plus if you favor the past, then maybe psychoanalysis is more your type? Freudian interpretation of dreams, revolving around the subconscious? The Id, Ego, and Superego?

Sorry, but psychology is much better and concise than it used to be. After all, you don’t hear about many Milgram or Stanford Prison experiments anymore. And there are things like the DSM that are available to practitioners.

Science is basically any field that involves theories or sorts of testing/experiments that seek to quantify certain things through empirical studies. Curiosity fueling advancement and desires for understanding with healthy skepticism. Clinical ain’t the only field. There’s developmental, evolutionary, cognitive, forensic, abnormal, and plenty of other branches that are associated with biochemistry, anatomy, and behavior. Psychology originally came from the study of the mind which changed to behavior because we cannot literally examine a mind itself. It goes hand-in-hand with analyzing brain functions and the anatomical chemistry going on. Chemicals, nerves, signals sent through the brain, etc.. So, psychology is one of the hybrid branches between the analytical/natural sciences with behavioral/social sciences.