We Never Know
No Slack
Its fact some agree with science if it agrees with them but not if it disagrees with them.
Why do you feel its wrong to say that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Some things I am noticing
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Its fact some agree with science if it agrees with them but not if it disagrees with them.
Why do you feel its wrong to say that?
Augustus
…
Why would you uncritically go with something you don't trust?
You're quoting these like it's supposed to be damning of the conclusions by the study (and every other study) and reinforces your personal view (based on feelings and belief, not science.)
"However, our current understanding of these factors is far from complete and the results are not always consistent."
Margin for error doesn't invalidate findings, if you want to invalidate findings, then actually say *why* they are invalid. Or stop pretending your conclusions are scientifically based.
"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"
This is a study about sexual identity. This paragraph is stating that while prenatal hormones may effect sexual identity, that hasn't been the case with gender identity. It is *not* saying that nothing else derived from hormones, genetics, epigenetics, and other factors don't play a part in trans and nonbinary identities.
"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."
This is criticizing the tendency to pretend sexuality is a binary, not study sexualities other than gay men, and commentary on limited selection for gay studies to things like twin studies or fetal feminization makes it harder to share positive results for biological basis for sexual identity. And then goes on to say that despite those limitations, biological basis for sexual identity and sexual orientation is evident.
So if it's so evident by your own link, why do you dismiss it out of hand?
Ps: Just to clear up any confusion that exists, sexual identity isn't the same as gender identity. Sexual identity is identifying romantic interests ie homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, pansexual etc. It has nothing to do with identifying as a man or woman, which is gender identity.
Last edited:
You know what I always witness and was in fact guilty of this myself for a long time, actually.
People with prejudices are often the very first ones ones to jump head first into the tried and true “trust the science” mantra and as soon as it conflicts with those preconceived notions, suddenly the science is “political” and untrue. They’re the battlers on the side of “real” science.
I did this often. Even as I would like to think I know better. I was always encouraged to use critical thinking. I was always encouraged to ask questions. But I guess I let my emotions get the better of me. I wanted to be a part of a community, rather than forming my own conclusions and like you said follow the science, follow the evidence.
Also, since it seems pertinent to the direction of this thread is taking I’d like to quickly say
Trans Rights!!!!!
Last edited:
Given that there is very little scientific justification of the concept of race.......
I participated in that thread and never saw that. I don't recall a single person that accepted some science then rejected some other. I didn't. In that thread, you asked, "DNA can tell you whether someone is male or female. Concerning the OP, should we go with science or what we think?" to which I responded, "Both. If you want to know whether a person is genetically male or female, check their DNA." I also wrote, "Bob isn't calling herself a woman, which would be a claim of fact. She just feels like one, and wants to be seen and accepted as one. I have no problem with that." Is that what you mean by going with feelings instead science?
OK. So what is your point? You haven't explicitly stated what your grievance is in this thread, but in the other one, you wrote, "telling me I have to accept what you feel or believe bothers me." I'd say that that thread and this one are about you having difficulty with this topic.
I'm also going to repost what I answered you there, since you didn't acknowledge reading it or try to answer it. "Who's telling you that? You're not being asked or forced to believe anything. If by accepting you mean treating such people with tolerance if not kindness, then yes, you are asked to that at a minimum. The alternative is to demean or oppress them, which is not your right. That would be you trying to force them to conform to your preferences, to live their lives so as not to offend your sensibilities. You are not entitled to that. They are entitled to live as they like within the law."
I also asked you this, which was also disregarded:
"And why would you want to make such people's lives harder? Can you not empathize with them? Do you consider the Golden Rule a good moral precept? I'm a humanist. I have no reason to be bigoted against law abiding people struggling to find themselves. And the Golden Rule is central in humanist ethics. It's the basis for the tolerance that humanists advocate, as well as the desire to empower people with self-development and opportunity. It's why we celebrate this new Supreme Court Justice's confirmation and abhor all bigotry. It's not fair, it's not nice, and it's not how anybody wants to be treated."
It seems that your implicit grievance is that you don't like what is happening of late in the area of gender identity, and that if the science doesn't say that men are women, you won't either. That sounds like rationalization for not wanting to have a more kind and inclusive attitude, one you feel is being forced on you, and part of that rationalization is to imply that those willing to do so are disregarding science when they do. Isn't that what you meant by, "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 understand your cognitive dissonance, but you can transcend it simply by applying the Golden Rule. Try empathy. Imagine feeling like your body doesn't match your mind, and you can't be happy "going with the science," which is really not being happy conforming to societal expectations. How would you like to be treated? Treat others that way. You don't have to be comfortable with it. You just need to remember the Golden Rule.
And the science shows that the chromosomal aspects of sex do not always correspond to the morphological aspects (primary and secondary sexual characteristics), and those do not always correspond to the brain development. which very often do not correspond to social morays.
.
There is far more to human sexuality and gender identity, even biologically, than what the chromosomes say.
From androgen insensitivity, to differences in the timing and duration of the 'testosterone bath' in utero, to other aspects of brain development, to events as late as the teen years (a time of significant brain changes), things are much more complicated than a simple binary M/F
There is a great deal of scientific justification, eg,
different genetics yielding different preponderances
of diseases & reactions to medication.
But regarding social aspects of race, I agree that
these differences aren't science based. Transracial
people are all about which culture they feel they
belong to (IMO).
I wonder....are some people trying to make transracial
& transgender phenomena identical in cromulence,
ie, using the former to attack the latter?
PureX
Veteran Member
Further toward what, though? The problem with science is that it's applicable to physical function only. It does nothing at all to help us advance morally or spiritually. In effect, is gives a box full of loaded pistols to a bunch of hyperactive monkeys. And as we all can see, it's not going well for the monkeys. Because increasing functionality without increasing wisdom is a recipe for disaster.
And worse then that, we now have a generation of "scientism" cultists that reject the traditional pathways to moral and spiritual wisdom (philosophy and religion) as "useless" because they think functionality defines all truth, or any truth that matters to them.
There is a problem with expecting uneducated people to accept Science results. They shouldn't. They should respect other people, but don't expect them to accept vague assurances of scientific consensus or "All Scientists agree" or anything like that. For them Science is about the same as the paranormal. Things happen in a certain way, and they live in the best way they know how.
For the uneducated there can be no scientific consensus, only the consensus of public opinion or of authority. Take for example with global warming. Its proclaimed to be a scientific consensus; but at bottom there is no such thing to the uneducated. They don't how Science functions, and they know that the results can be influenced by politicians or media or gossip. There also examples of Scientists lying and getting away with it for a long time. There is a reason a lot of people don't accept Science results.
Remember the Cold Fusion buzz? Y2K bug confusion? Both are absolutely stunningly good reasons not to accept scientific consensus if you don't have any Science education. I have an advantage, because I have had Physics, Biology, Chemistry, History and some other helps. If it were only me and a television, I'd have no reason at all to accept scientific consensus. None.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I knew a girl who by all physical appearances was a female, vagina and all. When she became a teenager, she went to the doctor because she never starting having periods. She discovered that not only was she sterile but had Xy chromosomes. In spite of this, she continued living and identifying as a girl; she looked, behaved, and felt like one.
Science in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's would say that being homosexual was a deviancy. It's only after more work into how humans behave, and how biology functions on identity and sexual preferences, that science changed this view and approach. Homosexuality is no longer considered a deviancy.
Your thread about gender identity and science seemed to be relying on this obsolete type of rigid science and exploits the uncertainty of gender identity issues that are coming "out of the closet" in modern society. The freedoms of these gender rebels is being challenged yet again by conservative traditionalists who resided to accept gays decades ago.
I predict your intolerance of gender rebels will be obsolete in coming decades and accepted as a sort of norm eventually. Once again conservatives are far behind in equality and moral standards.
One area I feel this is true about the 'about science' crowd comes in areas of science that the materialist-atheist types don't like. And that field would be ESP testing that has proven a consistent odds against chance that makes something not understood by current science to be at play.
I see clear 'science denial' by these types and then the attempt to justify the denial with the unsupported accusation that the experiments are flawed. What it really is, is 'science denial' when they don't like the implications. That's not scientific, sorry, when it is paired with quick acceptance of anything supportive of their philosophical worldview.
Last edited:
@We Never Know: I am curious what you will say about this.
Is this person male because they are XY? Or female because they have all female physical characteristics?
Would this person be wrong to identify as female?
Are you denying the *science* that this situation can occur?
And with this, do you agree that chromosomes do NOT determine sex?
Which restroom do you think this person should use?
Should they be allowed to play on a women's sports team?
But what does the Bible say about this?
And what about chimerism, wherein one one twin
in the womb absorbs the other, & they're of different
sexes? The result of different DNA can be expressed
in different body parts, perhaps even portions of the brain.
Male microchimerism in the human female brain - PubMed
A fair number of people are their own twins.
One of'm....
This Woman Is Her Own Twin: What Is Chimerism?
Again, I wonder....how does the Bible address this?
Last edited:
We Never Know
No Slack
“Father Heathen said:
I knew a girl who by all physical appearances was a female, vagina and all. When she became a teenager, she went to the doctor because she never starting having periods. She discovered that not only was she sterile but had Xy chromosomes. In spite of this, she continued living and identifying as a girl; she looked, behaved, and felt like one.”
To answer your questions polymath
“Is this person male because they are XY? Or female because they have all female physical characteristics?”
I would assume they have a genetic disorder called adrogen syndrome. I would think their case could be supported with science either way.
Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.
For males its Klinefelter syndrome
Klinefelter syndrome - Symptoms and causes
“Would this person be wrong to identify as female?”
I would assume they have a genetic disorder called adrogen syndrome. I would think their case could be supported with science either way.
"Are you denying the *science* that this situation can occur?"
“And with this, do you agree that chromosomes do NOT determine sex?”
As clearly stated here "the simplest thing DNA can tell you is whether someone is male or female apart from some very rare cases"
What DNA can tell us
“Which restroom do you think this person should use?”
The one they are plumbed for
“Should they be allowed to play on a women's sports team?”
Sure. They were born that way. If they had been born with web feet instead should they be disqualified from competing. Nope.
Last edited:
Yazata
Active Member
I'm not We Never Know, but I'll take a shot at it.
This individual would appear to be genotypically male, but phenotypically female.
'Wrong' as in mistaken, or 'wrong' as in morally wrong? The latter isn't a scientific question.
I think that medically speaking it's customary in these cases to go with the phenotypic presentation. It certainly makes for living a more normal life.
They are exceedingly rare medical curiosities. A small fraction of 1% of births.
No, I wouldn't go that far. Chromosomes do determine the development of phenotypic sex, although that developmental determination can go awry on occasion so as to create problem cases. The fact remains that phenotypic sex and genomic sex do correspond in over 99% of cases. The genomic sex determines the developmental process that normally produces the phenotypic sex. So the causal connection is there.
That isn't a scientific question any longer. It stops being science as soon as the word 'should' is introduced.
Probably the one corresponding to the person's phenotypic sex and external anatomy.
That's definitely not a scientific question since it addresses all sorts of issues like fairness.
My own view is that the individual probably should be allowed to participate on female teams provided that the XY genes don't provide too much of a physical advantage. They probably wouldn't in a situation where the individual is phenotypically female.
People in this situation usually keep it to themselves and as long as they appear externally female, they will typically be accepted as female.
You acknowledge this as a phenomenon and yet disregard or call into question the phenomenon of transgenderism? Really?
We can scan for such a phenomenon on the brain these days, you know?
Hell I remember learning about people transitioning (as it is a known recommendation by medical experts in various fields) in my actual high school biology class. As in it was in a freaking science text book
Yeah what was that about following the science even if it conflicts with your feelings again?