Some things I am noticing

[We Never Know]

Many people claim to "be about science" only if science agrees with them. When it doesn't agree, then its isn't about science at all, its about how they feel.
That was shown in my DNA" thread.

Whether I agree with science or not, I stick with science. I don't bounce around depending whether or not it agrees with me or not.

Science is learning process and as we learn, science advances and we learn even more. Its a tool that has brought us out of the stone ages and isn't based on feelings.

 

[Sirona]

Well, for some reason, "God told me so" isn't accepted as a valid argument anymore, so science is the next best thing in terms of "irrefutable authority".

 

[We Never Know]

Well, for some reason, "God told me so" isn't accepted as a valid argument anymore, so science is the next best thing in terms of "irrefutable authority".

Science is an awesome tool. It has brought us further than any feeling or any belief ever has.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Science differentiates chromosomal sex from gonadal sex from gender identity and gender expression. Discounting what's between one's ears in favor of what DNA says isn't doing science a favor, just over-simplifying a nuanced conversation.

Take your own advise.
Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia
What Do We Mean By Sex and Gender?
Between the (Gender) Lines: the Science of Transgender Identity - Science in the News
Gene variants provide insight into brain, body incongruence in transgender
Biological basis of gender identity - ScienceDirect

 

[We Never Know]

Take your own advise.

My post isn't about advice or giving advice.
What made you think it is?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My post isn't about advice or giving advice.
What made you think it is?

Virtue signaling the importance of accepting science consistently and not ignoring science that doesn't conform to your worldview...while doing just that.
Go back and read my last post, I added some helpful information.

 

[We Never Know]

Virtue signaling the importance of accepting science consistently and not ignoring science that doesn't conform to your worldview...while doing just that.
Go back and read my last post, I added some helpful information.

What do you think about Transracial people?

 

[We Never Know]

Virtue signaling the importance of accepting science consistently and not ignoring science that doesn't conform to your worldview...while doing just that.
Go back and read my last post, I added some helpful information.

"Virtue signaling the importance of accepting science consistently and not ignoring science that doesn't conform to your world view"

Is that becoming the norm?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What do you think about Transracial people?

What do you think the science says about the concept of transracial people vs the science of transgender if we're talking about supporting science, not feelings?

 

[We Never Know]

What do you think the science says about the concept of transracial people vs the science of transgender if we're talking about supporting science, not feelings?

What do you think? (You answered my question with a question so I will do the same)

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What do you think? (You answered my question with a question so I will do the same)

I think you're avoiding actually responding to the research already given with a red herring to distract that you don't actually do the research, just ask leading questions and hope I bite the bait.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Science may have “brought us out of the Stone Age”, but it appears we are more of a threat to each other and to the rest of nature now, than we have ever been. If we can find a way to progress socially, ethically, and imo spiritually, as far and as fast as we have in the sciences, then it’s possible we may avoid rendering our beautiful planet uninhabitable in the next few generations.

There’s little evidence of industrialised warfare in the Stone Age btw. That activity appears to have arrived with the development of Bronze Age technology.

 

[We Never Know]

I think you're avoiding actually responding to the research already given with a red herring to distract that you don't actually do the research, just ask leading questions and hope I bite the bait.

I think you only agree with science if it agrees with you and thats your prerogative.
But don't respond to my question without answering with anything but a question then get peeved and accuse me if anything simply because you were done the same way.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think you only agree with science if it agrees with you and thats your prerogative.
But don't respond to my question without answering with anything but a question then get peeved and accuse me if anything simply because you were done the same way.

So are you ignoring the studies already given and just concluding they're wrong without reading them? Why?

I've already done a lot of research for you. If you think transracial has the scientific backing transgender does, then post it. Don't ignore my posts then claim I owe you answers to questions intended to waste my time.

 

[Augustus]

Science may have “brought us out of the Stone Age”

Nah, science brought us out of the early modern period

 

[Heyo]

Many people claim to "be about science" only if science agrees with them. When it doesn't agree, then its isn't about science at all, its about how they feel.
That was shown in my DNA" thread.

Whether I agree with science or not, I stick with science. I don't bounce around depending whether or not it agrees with me or not.

Science is learning process and as we learn, science advances and we learn even more. Its a tool that has brought us out of the stone ages and isn't based on feelings.

Yep. One of the problems with science is that science is sometimes hard to understand and many aspects can't be summarized in one pop-science article - or one study for that matter.
Your DNA thread showed just that. You assumed, based on too little knowledge, that sex chromosomes perfectly determine the sex of an individual and that there are only two possible combinations of sex chromosomes.

 

[We Never Know]

So are you ignoring the studies already given and just concluding they're wrong without reading them? Why?

I've already done a lot of research for you. If you think transracial has the scientific backing transgender does, then post it. Don't ignore my posts then claim I owe you answers to questions intended to waste my time.

I replied to your post before you updated and edited it right? Yep

So a person can feel like they are different gender but cant feel like they are a different race? Is that what you are saying?

You can mix race and identify as either or.

They look white but say they're black: a tiny town in Ohio wrestles with race

 

[We Never Know]

Yep. One of the problems with science is that science is sometimes hard to understand and many aspects can't be summarized in one pop-science article - or one study for that matter.
Your DNA thread showed just that. You assumed, based on too little knowledge, that sex chromosomes perfectly determine the sex of an individual and that there are only two possible combinations of sex chromosomes.

Wrong. It also talked about Klinefelter syndrome

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I replied to your post before you updated and edited it right? Yep

So a person can feel like they are different gender but cant feel like they are a different race? Is that what you are saying?

You can mix race and identify as either or.

They look white but say they're black: a tiny town in Ohio wrestles with race

Your link just says that someone is claiming black identity while appearing white. I already know people who do that exist. But that does not substantiate it with anything like the body of psychological, physiological and genetic evidence for transgender studies given above. So why should I consider them equitable?

And more importantly, why can't you talk about the studies on their own merit? Seems avoidant.

 

[We Never Know]

Your link just says that someone is claiming black identity while appearing white. I already know people who do that exist. But that does not substantiate it with anything like the body of psychological, physiological and genetic evidence for transgender studies given above. So why should I consider them equitable?

And more importantly, why can't you talk about the studies on their own merit? Seems avoidant.

Just because there is a study on its doesn't make it right.

Do you agree or disagree with the following....

Are Gender Identity Disorders Mental Disorders? Recommendations for Revision of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health's Standards of Care

"Gender identity disorders are included as formal diagnoses in both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Classification of Diseases. The fact that gender identity disorders are classified as mental disorders is increasingly being contested, with some critics arguing for removal (drawing a parallel with the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM in 1974) and others for reform. At the heart of the argument are concerns about a mental health diagnosis pathologizing gender variance and perpetuating the attached social stigma. Some critics argue for coding gender identity concerns requiring medical intervention as physical conditions rather than mental disorders; after all, they argue, hormonal and surgical sex reassignment aim to adapt the body to match the patient's gender identity. However, as of yet, gender dysphoria cannot be detected by any physical anomaly justifying a physical rather than a mental health diagnosis. Even though recent research points toward the role of biology via sexual differentiation of the brain, the etiology of gender dysphoria remains unknown."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15532730902799987?journalCode=wijt20