Some things I am noticing

[ADigitalArtist]

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

Then say what's wrong with them. You can't say you accept science but then casually dismiss without reason multiple studies from multiple fields shown to you on the basis of 'some studies aren't right.' That's an extremely ascientific stance to take.

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

Gender identity disorder was removed from the DSM V nearly 10 years ago (December of 2012 by thr APA). Gender identity that differs from assigned sex at birth is not a disorder.

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

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.

So what you are saying is that people have opinions and then agree with things when it agrees with them and not when it doesn't? Mein Gott how shocking!

But lets be real. Really real. What you are saying is " IF someone disagrees with my interpretation of specific data and how it relates to the world as a whole then they aren't about science." What it seems you are telling me is that you don't like it when people disagree with you. That is fine and hey we all got our stuff lol

 

[We Never Know]

Then say what's wrong with them. You can't say you accept science but then casually dismiss without reason multiple studies from multiple fields shown to you on the basis of 'some studies aren't right.' That's an extremely ascientific stance to take.


Gender identity disorder was removed from the DSM V nearly 10 years ago (December of 2012 by thr APA). Gender identity that differs from assigned sex at birth is not a disorder.

Whats wrong with those studies is the same reason some/most were removed. They are not understood enough to make/give a solid scientific stance on them.

 

[We Never Know]

So what you are saying is that people have opinions and then agree with things when it agrees with them and not when it doesn't? Mein Gott how shocking!

But lets be real. Really real. What you are saying is " IF someone disagrees with my interpretation of specific data and how it relates to the world as a whole then they aren't about science." What it seems you are telling me is that you don't like it when people disagree with you. That is fine and hey we all got our stuff lol

"What it seems you are telling me is that you don't like it when people disagree with you."

Your post screams that simply because you took a post about people in general and made it about me.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Whats wrong with those studies is the same reason some/most were removed. They are not understood enough to make/give a solid scientific stance on them.

Saying 'science has changed to conform to new information in the past so these studies shouldn't be trusted' is also extremely ascientific. What about their methodology is wrong? What isn't 'solid' about their research? What exactly makes you skeptical of their findings other than just really wanting to believe gender identity has no scientific basis? And if you think we should be so skeptical then why do you seem to be so sure gender is a matter of only DNA?

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

"What it seems you are telling me is that you don't like it when people disagree with you."

Your post screams that simply because you took a post about people in general and made it about me.

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.

I mean tbh this kind of just sounds like the sort of thing someone posts right after another post has upset them but maybe I am reading too much into it. I've just never known someone to make those kind of posts without it being about them being about them being right and the other person being wrong.

When I read your post it sounds like someone being upset because other people disagreed with them.

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.

I mean this just sounds an awful lot like trying to call someone out without calling them out by name.

 

[Augustus]

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.

"Trust the science" is a terrible attitude to have.

All kinds of harmful beliefs have been considered scientific at one time or another and later found to be false.

There is also no singular "science", or any real way to definitively differentiate it from "not science". Some sciences are far more useful and reliable than other too.

So we should consider a range of factors rather than repeat platitudes like "trust the science"

We should recognise the benefits of the sciences and also their failings.

We should look for sciences with good track records and those which are less reliable and take this into account.

We should look at domains where sciences work well and those where they are less reliable and take this into account.

We should also consider ethics, experience, heuristics, etc. alongside scientific knowledge in many fields.

etc.

 

[We Never Know]

Saying 'science has changed to conform to new information in the past so these studies shouldn't be trusted' is also extremely ascientific. What about their methodology is wrong? What isn't 'solid' about their research? What exactly makes you skeptical of their findings other than just really wanting to believe gender identity has no scientific basis? And if you think we should be so skeptical then why do you seem to be so sure gender is a matter of only DNA?

Many unknowns.

Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation

"CONCLUSIONS
The data summarised in the present review suggest that both gender identity and sexual orientation are significantly influenced by events occurring during the early developmental period when the brain is differentiating under the influence of gonadal steroid hormones, genes and maternal factors. However, our current understanding of these factors is far from complete and the results are not always consistent. Animal studies form both the theoretical underpinnings of the prenatal hormone hypothesis and provide causal evidence for the effect of prenatal hormones on sexual orientation as modelled by tests of sexual partner preferences, although they do not translate to gender identity.

Sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place before sexual differentiation of the brain, making it possible that they are not always congruent. Structural and functional differences of hypothalamic nuclei and other brain areas differ in relation to sexual identity and sexual orientation, indicating that these traits develop independently. This may be a result of differing hormone sensitivities and/or separate critical periods, although this remains to be explored. Most findings are consistent with a predisposing influence of hormones or genes, rather than a determining influence. For example, only some people exposed to atypical hormone environments prenatally show altered gender identity or sexual orientation, whereas many do not. Family and twin studies indicate that genes play a role, but no specific candidate genes have been identified. Evidence that relates to the number of older brothers implicates maternal immune responses as a contributing factor for male sexual orientation. All of these mechanisms rely on correlations and our current understanding suffers from many limitations in the data, such as a reliance on retrospective clinical studies of individuals with rare conditions, small study populations sizes, biases in recruiting subjects, too much reliance on studies of male homosexuals, and the assumption that sexuality is easily categorised and binary. Moreover, none of the biological factors identified so far can explain all of the variances in sexual identity or orientation, nor is it known whether or how these factors may interact. Despite these limitations, the existing empirical evidence makes it clear that there is a significant biological contribution to the development of an individual’s sexual identity and sexual orientation.

Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation

 

[Heyo]

Wrong. It also talked about Klinefelter syndrome

"Concerning the OP, should we go with science or what we think?

Now before you answer that think about it... If people can go with what they think, then a god is as real as anything else to billions because they believe it, feel it, some say they have experienced it, talked to it, etc.. So it should be accepted as correct right?"

That is the complete text of your OP. Together with the title "DNA can tell you whether someone is male or female" I don't see Klinefelter syndrome there.
You also dismissed every study cited about embryonal development of sex organs and especially the brain.

But what's more is that you didn't even react to my objections of the conclusions you drew from the studies (which I didn't even attack). You wanted the science to confirm your bigotry and missed how that resulted in your hypocrisy.

The science is OK, it's what you make of it.

 

[We Never Know]

"Trust the science" is a terrible attitude to have.

All kinds of harmful beliefs have been considered scientific at one time or another and later found to be false.

There is also no singular "science", or any real way to definitively differentiate it from "not science". Some sciences are far more useful and reliable than other too.

So we should consider a range of factors rather than repeat platitudes like "trust the science"

We should recognise the benefits of the sciences and also their failings.

We should look for sciences with good track records and those which are less reliable and take this into account.

We should look at domains where sciences work well and those where they are less reliable and take this into account.

We should also consider ethics, experience, heuristics, etc. alongside scientific knowledge in many fields.

etc.

Did I say trust science?

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

"Trust the science" is a terrible attitude to have.

All kinds of harmful beliefs have been considered scientific at one time or another and later found to be false.

There is also no singular "science", or any real way to definitively differentiate it from "not science". Some sciences are far more useful and reliable than other too.

So we should consider a range of factors rather than repeat platitudes like "trust the science"

We should recognise the benefits of the sciences and also their failings.

We should look for sciences with good track records and those which are less reliable and take this into account.

We should look at domains where sciences work well and those where they are less reliable and take this into account.

We should also consider ethics, experience, heuristics, etc. alongside scientific knowledge in many fields.

etc.

I'd also throw out there that there was a time when things like you know eugenics was considered science. It always sounds a bit like a cult when people just say "trust the science to me." in the same way as when people say " Just trust the Guru." Ultimately we are dealing with things done by humans which require interpretation and time to be tested.

 

[We Never Know]

"Concerning the OP, should we go with science or what we think?

Now before you answer that think about it... If people can go with what they think, then a god is as real as anything else to billions because they believe it, feel it, some say they have experienced it, talked to it, etc.. So it should be accepted as correct right?"

That is the complete text of your OP. Together with the title "DNA can tell you whether someone is male or female" I don't see Klinefelter syndrome there.
You also dismissed every study cited about embryonal development of sex organs and especially the brain.

But what's more is that you didn't even react to my objections of the conclusions you drew from the studies (which I didn't even attack). You wanted the science to confirm your bigotry and missed how that resulted in your hypocrisy.

The science is OK, it's what you make of it.

My bad. I did leave the link out of the OP.

'DNA Test' for Transgender People Is Part of a Dark History | Time

 

[We Never Know]

I mean tbh this kind of just sounds like the sort of thing someone posts right after another post has upset them but maybe I am reading too much into it. I've just never known someone to make those kind of posts without it being about them being about them being right and the other person being wrong.

When I read your post it sounds like someone being upset because other people disagreed with them.



I mean this just sounds an awful lot like trying to call someone out without calling them out by name.

You tell me. If I started the thread... Who/what posts were before me to disagree with?

 

[Augustus]

Did I say trust science?

You said "Whether I agree with science or not, I stick with science."

What did you mean by that? How would you differentiate sticking with science from trusting science?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Many unknowns.

Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation

"CONCLUSIONS
The data summarised in the present review suggest that both gender identity and sexual orientation are significantly influenced by events occurring during the early developmental period when the brain is differentiating under the influence of gonadal steroid hormones, genes and maternal factors. However, our current understanding of these factors is far from complete and the results are not always consistent. Animal studies form both the theoretical underpinnings of the prenatal hormone hypothesis and provide causal evidence for the effect of prenatal hormones on sexual orientation as modelled by tests of sexual partner preferences, although they do not translate to gender identity.

Sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place before sexual differentiation of the brain, making it possible that they are not always congruent. Structural and functional differences of hypothalamic nuclei and other brain areas differ in relation to sexual identity and sexual orientation, indicating that these traits develop independently. This may be a result of differing hormone sensitivities and/or separate critical periods, although this remains to be explored. Most findings are consistent with a predisposing influence of hormones or genes, rather than a determining influence. For example, only some people exposed to atypical hormone environments prenatally show altered gender identity or sexual orientation, whereas many do not. Family and twin studies indicate that genes play a role, but no specific candidate genes have been identified. Evidence that relates to the number of older brothers implicates maternal immune responses as a contributing factor for male sexual orientation. All of these mechanisms rely on correlations and our current understanding suffers from many limitations in the data, such as a reliance on retrospective clinical studies of individuals with rare conditions, small study populations sizes, biases in recruiting subjects, too much reliance on studies of male homosexuals, and the assumption that sexuality is easily categorised and binary. Moreover, none of the biological factors identified so far can explain all of the variances in sexual identity or orientation, nor is it known whether or how these factors may interact. Despite these limitations, the existing empirical evidence makes it clear that there is a significant biological contribution to the development of an individual’s sexual identity and sexual orientation.

Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation

"Despite these limitations, the existing empirical evidence makes it clear that there is a significant biological contribution to the development of an individual’s sexual identity and sexual orientation."

Margins for error isn't an excuse to wholesale deny results. And certainly doesn't explain your definitive assertion that everything to do with being a man or woman strictly has to do with chromosomes. Your own link says otherwise.

 

[We Never Know]

You said "Whether I agree with science or not, I stick with science."

What did you mean by that? How would you differentiate sticking with science from trusting science?

I go with science, not belief or feelings

 

[We Never Know]

"Despite these limitations, the existing empirical evidence makes it clear that there is a significant biological contribution to the development of an individual’s sexual identity and sexual orientation."

Margins for error isn't an excuse to wholesale deny results. And certainly doesn't explain your definitive assertion that everything to do with being a man or woman strictly has to do with chromosomes. Your own link says otherwise.

I knew you would only focus on that while not on these...

"However, our current understanding of these factors is far from complete and the results are not always consistent."

"Animal studies form both the theoretical underpinnings of the prenatal hormone hypothesis and provide causal evidence for the effect of prenatal hormones on sexual orientation as modelled by tests of sexual partner preferences, although they do not translate to gender identity"

"All of these mechanisms rely on correlations and our current understanding suffers from many limitations in the data, such as a reliance on retrospective clinical studies of individuals with rare conditions, small study populations sizes, biases in recruiting subjects, too much reliance on studies of male homosexuals, and the assumption that sexuality is easily categorised and binary."

 

[Augustus]

I go with science, not belief or feelings

How is that different from saying you "trust the science"?

Do you just "go with science" in fields with terrible track records for accuracy (psychology, neuroscience, medicine, social sciences, etc.) or do you also have to utilise some other forms of reasoning?

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

You tell me. If I started the thread... Who/what posts were before me to disagree with?

That was shown in my DNA" thread.

The folks in the previous thread. You know the one you mentioned at the start lol.

 

[We Never Know]

How is that different from saying you "trust the science"?

Do you just "go with science" in fields with terrible track records for accuracy (psychology, neuroscience, medicine, social sciences, etc.) or do you also have to utilise some other forms of reasoning?

You don't have to trust something to go with it.