From gravity to gender, scientific truth stands above human feelings and politics

[Wilson23]

Of course, whether a male-to-female transgender is a woman is NOT a scientific question the way the speed of light is a scientific question -- and the OP intentionally confuses that point.

And we can tell it's from a POV that otherwise values science very little.

 

[Baztrachian]

Of course, whether a male-to-female transgender is a woman is NOT a scientific question the way the speed of light is a scientific question -- and the OP intentionally confuses that point.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagrees with you. Before a Senate Judiciary Committee panel she went on the record saying that the question of what is a woman is absolutely a scientific question that can only be addressed by a biologist (a biological sciences specialist).

 

[Baztrachian]

My father was an economist. When I shoed Dad the reading list for the seminar he said, "That man knows a lot about economics."

 

[YDB95]

There is a first principle beneath all the noise: humanity is divided into men and women. From the dawn of order, men and women have stood apart by nature and necessity. It is men who have built kingdoms, forged laws, and wielded power to shape the world’s fortunes. Even the rights granted to women, precious and hard-won, are gifts extended by men of calculation and will, bestowed not out of charity, but to secure order and stability. Yet beware, unchecked feminism, untethered from gratitude or prudence, risks unraveling the very resolve that upholds civilization. For when men grow weary of defending a world that no longer honors their role, the foundation beneath all rights, male strength and sacrifice, may crumble, and with it, all that was granted in goodwill.

When you get rolling on gender roles, it's like listening to the professor's songs from My Fair Lady on a loop. Each one more deliciously sexist than the last.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagrees with you. Before a Senate Judiciary Committee panel she went on the record saying that the question of what is a woman is absolutely a scientific question that can only be addressed by a biologist (a biological sciences specialist).

She was simply refusing to take the bait on a loaded question from a bigot.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Your father professed to be an economist yet he admired communism? Communism is not the product of economics, it is the denial of economics.

That is not what I said. You are indulging in the straw man fallacy. In the straw man fallacy one distorts the argument of an opponent in order to make it easier to refute.

My father did not admire Communism. He admired a man who was a Communist. So did I.

I read a political thinker for insight, rather than doctrine. On the basis of the seminar I took from that man on Das Kapital, and other studies on my own, I think Karl Marx had two valid insights, and that he was mistaken about everything else.

In order to evaluate a political thinker that way one needs to look over his shoulder as he writes. Most people either likes what he says, and agree with all of it, or they dislike it and disagree with all of it.

Karl Marx did not advocate the totalitarian methods used in his name during the twentieth century. He did inspire them, who he is not entirely innocent. During the twentieth century millions of people were not killed in the name of John Stuart Mill.

 

[JohnEngelman]

View attachment 2592067

Once Fidel Castro was asked, "Why do so many people leave Cuba for the United States?"

He answered, "A much higher percentage of Mexicans leave Mexico for the United States."

 

[OralAllOver]

The facts of science were facts long before there were humans to discover them. And they will continue to be facts long after our species has gone extinct, long after any brains exist to remember us.

Alas, of late, there is one particularly egregious example of human hubris in the face of the eternal and universal verities of science — specifically, the ridiculous claim that we can override science and choose our own sex from a spectrum. The human conceit here is the idea that personal feelings can change reality.

There are not just males and females, so the claim goes. They are but the extremes of a spectrum. Where you place yourself in the spectrum is a matter of personal choice. If you feel you are a woman, you are a woman. Never mind if you have a Y-chromosome, testes, and a penis, no matter if you have breasts and ovaries, your male or female identity is something you get to decide for yourself, as easily as you might choose your political party or favorite football team.


It is to be hoped that, in America, this will soon go the way of McCarthyism. I could imagine future lawsuits against surgeons who, in violation of the first clause of the Hippocratic oath, have cut off the breasts of girls below the age of consent for no better reason than a subsequently regretted claim to have been “assigned” the wrong sex.

How can I be so sure that there are only two sexes? Isn’t it just a matter of opinion? I advocate for what I shall call the universal biological definition (UBD) based on gamete size. Biologists use the UBD because it’s the only definition that applies all the way across the animal and plant kingdoms and all the way through evolutionary history.

Gametes come in two radically different sizes, the phenomenon of anisogamy. Female gametes are very much larger than male gametes, and that is how biologists define female and male.

A feeling of being in a body of the wrong sex seems to be a real psychological condition. Such “dysphorics” can feel genuine distress. When anorexics look in the mirror, they see an emaciated body that they think is too fat. “Gender” dysphorics look in the mirror and see the wrong genitals. Both deserve sympathy and understanding. Nobody is phobic about anorexics. Why should anyone be phobic about gender dysphorics? “Transphobia” is a pernicious fiction.

If your science is so weak that the best you can do is yell that your opponent is a “transphobic bigot,” a “TERF,” or a “full-on MAGA alt-right Trump-supporter,” you’ve already lost the argument.

"[T]he ridiculous claim that we can override science and choose our own sex from a spectrum."

1) Your recycled "Heritage Foundation position pieces" are lazy

2) You better damn well WALK or run everywhere. A car would be "choosing," right.

It seems you don't think, you regurgitate what some rich fools like to hear. Maybe some day understand that it all begins with honesty

 

[JohnEngelman]

Your father professed to be an economist yet he admired communism? Communism is not the product of economics, it is the denial of economics.

You are projecting onto my father opinions he did not have.

I have known and liked members of the American Communist Party. They disagreed with me a lot. Unlike you they disagreed without being disagreeable.

 

[Aquelle]

As usual, you post nothign of substnace.

No, I think they got you.

 

[Aquelle]

The facts of science were facts long before there were humans to discover them. And they will continue to be facts long after our species has gone extinct, long after any brains exist to remember us.

Alas, of late, there is one particularly egregious example of human hubris in the face of the eternal and universal verities of science — specifically, the ridiculous claim that we can override science and choose our own sex from a spectrum. The human conceit here is the idea that personal feelings can change reality.

There are not just males and females, so the claim goes. They are but the extremes of a spectrum. Where you place yourself in the spectrum is a matter of personal choice. If you feel you are a woman, you are a woman. Never mind if you have a Y-chromosome, testes, and a penis, no matter if you have breasts and ovaries, your male or female identity is something you get to decide for yourself, as easily as you might choose your political party or favorite football team.


It is to be hoped that, in America, this will soon go the way of McCarthyism. I could imagine future lawsuits against surgeons who, in violation of the first clause of the Hippocratic oath, have cut off the breasts of girls below the age of consent for no better reason than a subsequently regretted claim to have been “assigned” the wrong sex.

How can I be so sure that there are only two sexes? Isn’t it just a matter of opinion? I advocate for what I shall call the universal biological definition (UBD) based on gamete size. Biologists use the UBD because it’s the only definition that applies all the way across the animal and plant kingdoms and all the way through evolutionary history.

Gametes come in two radically different sizes, the phenomenon of anisogamy. Female gametes are very much larger than male gametes, and that is how biologists define female and male.

A feeling of being in a body of the wrong sex seems to be a real psychological condition. Such “dysphorics” can feel genuine distress. When anorexics look in the mirror, they see an emaciated body that they think is too fat. “Gender” dysphorics look in the mirror and see the wrong genitals. Both deserve sympathy and understanding. Nobody is phobic about anorexics. Why should anyone be phobic about gender dysphorics? “Transphobia” is a pernicious fiction.

If your science is so weak that the best you can do is yell that your opponent is a “transphobic bigot,” a “TERF,” or a “full-on MAGA alt-right Trump-supporter,” you’ve already lost the argument.

And of course you ALSO agree with science when it tells us:

1) vaccinations are effective

2) climate change is happening

3) creationism is bogus

4) genetic differences between human"races" are completely insignificant

Or do you only cry "science" to support your own beliefs?

 

[Wilson23]

Your father professed to be an economist yet he admired communism? Communism is not the product of economics, it is the denial of economics.

Karl Marx could fairly claim to be one of the great economists, if nothing else.

 

[Baztrachian]

Once Fidel Castro was asked, "Why do so many people leave Cuba for the United States?"

He answered, "A much higher percentage of Mexicans leave Mexico for the United States."

If Cuba shared a land border with any other nation it would empty out just like what we see happening in Venezuela.

 

[Hel_Books]

, have cut off the breasts of girls below the age of consent

Does this really happen? Is it even likely to?

Or are you just feeling threatened by some woman who doesn't want to wear a skirt?

 

[Baztrachian]

And of course you ALSO agree with science when it tells us:

1) vaccinations are effective

2) climate change is happening

3) creationism is bogus

4) genetic differences between human"races" are completely insignificant

Or do you only cry "science" to support your own beliefs?

1. I disagree with "science" when the people behind it invent a new definition for "vaccine" that includes whatever the fuck was in the mRNA shot that was forced on people.

2. Climate change is always happening. That's why we are not living in an ice age.

3. Muslims have a creation story. Do you refute it?

4. Genetic differences between racial groups can be significant. Caucasians have a higher incidence of prostate cancer. Sub-Saharan Africans have higher incidences of sickle cell anemia, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer. Jewish people are susceptible to Tay Sach's disease. Asians tend to kidney and liver diseases.

Black people living in extreme northern latitudes should monitor their Vitamin D levels and take supplements as needed.

People who are not dark skinned should take care to avoid the noonday sun when living in the Tropics.

That's all scientific fact.

 

[Wilson23]

2. Climate change is always happening. That's why we are not living in an ice age.

But it's like this (scroll to bottom): https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline