How the Political Left Denies Basic Science With Regard to Gender

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, they are fully social, no partiality about it.

I disagree. They clearly have a basis in biological reality (hormones, as most trans people could tell you!) but are filtered through the lens of culture.

 

[Nakosis]

When I was a college undergrad at a fairly liberal university, I took a required class in which students were taught to recognize that there are more than two genders. This was presented as factual, and pronouns referring to other genders besides male and female were introduced. Obviously I had some objection to this at the time, but it did not occur to me until several years later how absurd and appalling it is that students are actually being taught even at the public university level that fictional genders exist. Now, to be clear, I have no problem with people who do not want to identify as being "male" or "female." It is their right to identify with a fictional gender that exists only in their imagination, but it is also my right to point out that fictional genders are not a biological reality. Perhaps there is some alien planet in which more than two genders exist, but, on earth, there are males, females, and, in exceedingly rare cases, hermaphrodites, or people who are born with ambiguous genitalia. However, many people on the left believe that the scientifically erroneous claim that there are many distinct and objectively real genders should be taught in public schools. It is appalling to me that the people on the political left want fiction to be presented to children as fact. It is just as bad as the political right wanting the fictional creation story of Genesis to be presented as fact or as an "alternative theory" in public schools. I notice that the political left (with regard to gender) is quite similar to the political right with regard to creation/evolution in the following ways:

(1) Like creationists, many liberals believe that the fictional genders that they invented should be presented as objective fact or at least as a valid alternate theory in schools.

(2) Like creationists, when people point out that they are obviously scientifically incorrect, they become overly emotional and angry since they have no way to rationally or scientifically defend the existence of their fictional genders.

(3) Like creationists, they claim that they are "victims" whose ideas are being suppressed when they are shown to be wrong.

I don't expect this to be a popular thread. But it needs to be made. The political left is clearly not pro-science. They are only pro-science when the science leans toward what they want to believe. For instance, the left supports science with regard to climate change, since the evidence is pretty strong that the climate is changing, and the left wants to believe in climate change (I'd argue it's not quite as strong as the evidence for evolution or continental drift, for instance, but that's another discussion). Similarly, the left supports science with regard to evolution (and evolution IS a scientific fact). But, sadly, the reason that they support evolutionary science is not because they care about truth, but because they don't like religion, and so are eager to support facts that align with their pre-established likes and dislikes. But, if science ever runs the risk of hurting someone's feelings, they are quick to deny it. This can be seen by the recent invention of fictional genders and the outrageous presentation of them to students as being objectively real. The "science" of gender identities is as much of a science as "creation science". In other words, it is not science at all.

I have no doubt that many people will be angry about this thread. That's a typical reaction of people who base their beliefs on emotions and whims rather than evidence and in this case, facts that are quite obvious. It is somewhat analagous to the reaction of fundamentalist Christians when I point out that the creation story of Genesis is fictional.

I suppose my view is there is a separation between conscious reality and physical reality. Conscious reality is pretty flexible, like how people identify themselves. Physical reality is not flexible. The current vogue seems to continue to cater to conscious reality. Religious folks have being at it for thousands of years. Science/physics comes along and puts a damper on conscious reality.

I think humans are more comfortable with conscious reality. Without religion as a cultural playground for conscious reality folks seek other ways to make their reality flexible.

Religion/spirituality provided something we consciously needed. Flexibility reality. Gender identity is the new religion. The new flexible reality humans seem to have a need for.

 

[Nakosis]

I can't really agree (being unfamiliar with the course & claims), but you
get a <creative> frubal. Still, I have seen other areas where science is
tossed out the window when it conflicts with politics, eg, their pronouncement
that the motive behind every rape is never sex. No study has ever shown this.

What? You mean like sexual desire?

Sexual gratification is often not a primary motivation for a rape offender.
True. While some offenders do seek sexual gratification from the act, sexual gratification is often not a primary motivation for a rape offender. Power, control, and anger are more likely to be the primary motivators.
California Megans Law

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah. People are so sure of themselves in their ability to just see it that it leads to some embarrassing situations for them amd frustrating for cis people, particularly and especially women. I don't hear of such things happening to cis men nearly as frequently or as often. But, every once in awhile, a woman who was born female will basically get told she looks like a dude by some "well intentioned" wanker who sees themselves as enforcers of morality and decency.

I have a standard approach which has worked well....
Mind my own business, pick the most isolated facility, & avoid eye contact.
I don't beat anyone up because of their appearance.
It works for all genders & any in between.

 

[Revoltingest]

What? You mean like sexual desire?

Sexual gratification is often not a primary motivation for a rape offender.
True. While some offenders do seek sexual gratification from the act, sexual gratification is often not a primary motivation for a rape offender. Power, control, and anger are more likely to be the primary motivators.
California Megans Law

I underlined the important words.
Such unquantified language can
mean dang near anything.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have a standard approach which has worked well....
Mind my own business, pick the most isolated facility, & avoid eye contact.
I don't beat anyone up because of their appearance.
It works for all genders & any in between.

How revolting of you to be an accomplice to destroying the moral fabric of society. Everything is going to burn to the ground, and it's your fault.

 

[Revoltingest]

How revolting of you to be an accomplice to destroying the moral fabric of society. Everything is going to burn to the ground, and it's your fault.

If God exists, I want him to cry.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If God exists, I want him to cry.

Me too. Because he really hates me and wants to see me suffer. So I want to see him suffer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Me too. Because he really hates me and wants to see me suffer. So I want to see him suffer.

Aye, whatever you endure, it's His plan.
And many don't even survive it to adulthood.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Most Religious Creationists are big fans of the Black/White, Good/Evil, Day/Night, Gay/Straight school of knowledge. Most rational, learned people realize nature is far more complicated and complex than that.

You could call it the fractals of humanity.

 

[Nakosis]

I underlined the important words.
Such unquantified language can
mean dang near anything.

Yes, I know. This be what I found. Really just trying to see if I understood you right. As you say, nothing concrete about the motivation.

 

[Nakosis]

If God exists, I want him to cry.

I can recommend some shows on Netflix that are real tear jerkers. Guaranteed to make even a God cry.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I know. This be what I found. Really just trying to see if I understood you right. As you say, nothing concrete about the motivation.

True dat.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can recommend some shows on Netflix that are real tear jerkers. Guaranteed to make even a God cry.

I want the schadenfreude kind of crying....at God taking offense at sin.

 

[Salvador]

Both Native Americans and people in India have identified such people for a long long time.



I guess you get to use that word since I've identified Trump as a dangerous abnormality along with members of the Trump cult.



They don't exist according to the OP but they are called intersex.

According to LGBT demographer Gary Gates with UCLA’s Williams Institute, there ca. 700,000 transgender persons living in America; this means only ca. 0.2 percent of Americans are transgender. They do exist, but they are very uncommon.

New Research Answers Question: How many LGBT People are there in the United States - Williams Institute

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I want the schadenfreude kind of crying....at God taking offense at sin.

I'd rather see him imprisoned in Hell. Eternally burning alone in darkness.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd rather see him imprisoned in Hell. Eternally burning alone in darkness.

That's too cruel...immorally so....the kind of thing He would do.
Send him to sensitivity training at a liberal university.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's too cruel....the kind of thing He would do.

Sometimes fire has to be fought with fire. Vlad Dracul III didn't get the Ottoman Turks to flee Wallachia because he asked them to go.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sometimes fire has to be fought with fire. Vlad Dracul III didn't get the Ottoman Turks to flee Wallachia because he asked them to go.

I say that we shouldn't descend to God's level, just because He went there.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I say that we shouldn't descend to God's level, just because He went there.

Jehovah is definitely a kill or be killed situation.