If we want to be really honest (and we don't), the real war on science is being conducted by the universal human trait of confirmation bias.

Once politics entered science, objectivity and true peer review noticeably suffered. If you believe (as the article you link demonstrates) the true offense to science is coming exclusively from the right, you're either a victim of or a willing propagator of it.

Quick question: What is the only animal on the planet that you can surgically remove its genitalia, and a large segment of so-called scientists will argue that you've changed its sex?

https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2018 01:04PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Reminds me of the two-word phrase, Social Science.

Edited to fix a serious spelling error; much more serious than usual.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2018 01:24PM by elderolddog.

If you take time to do some basic reading you'll find out that "sex change" is only a term in the popular press.

Sexuality is based in the brain and develops parallel to and independent of biological sex or external genitalia.

People who have gender reassignment surgery were not the "sex" that was assigned to them at birth and then have their anatomy changed to correspond with their innate sex.

If you don't think that's the case I'd like you to tell me just how someone could "convert" you to another sex and make you feel and act totally differently that you naturally do.

I've also told you previously about women with AIS or other intersex conditions who are genetically male but were assigned female sex at birth or like Lady Colin Campbell who is totally female but had a fused labia and was assigned male at birth when she was not.

The only difference is in your mind.


Update:

If you read the article it also mentions how younger more liberal people are more likely to be anti-vaxxers than older, more conservatives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2018 01:55PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> People who have gender reassignment surgery were
> not the "sex" that was assigned to them at birth
> and then have their anatomy changed to correspond
> with their innate sex.
>
> If you don't think that's the case I'd like you to
> tell me just how someone could "convert" you to
> another sex and make you feel and act totally
> differently that you naturally do.
>

Well, this is not science. In mammals, birds, and reptiles, you can almost without any variance determine the sex of an individual based upon the genes that are present. In actual hard science, there is no such thing as an "innate sexuality" that varies from the actual genetic determination.

Your birth sex is a physical, observable trait. It's not a feeling.

If you are a man who feels that your left arm is not an actual part of your body and was never meant to be, you will be stopped from having it removed.

In fact, genitals are the only body parts that the medical community will help you remove if you present with the exact same complaint.

When Chloe Jennings White presented herself as born with mistaken genitalia, she was easily able to find help to have her male genitalia removed and her body surgically altered to resemble a woman. Though she was born as a man, she said that's what felt right for her, and she was able to have it done.

She now feels that she was always meant to be a quadriplegic. She offers the same argument as she did for her sex change and insists she's living a life that is out of sync with how she feels about herself. She found a doctor overseas who may be willing to sever the nerves needed to paralyze her. But it's expensive.

“I’ll never be able to afford it, but I know I won’t regret it if I ever can, and I don’t know why it upsets people,” she said, according to News.com.au. “It’s the same as a transsexual man having his penis cut off. It’s never coming back, but they know it’s what they want.”

Hmmmm.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/chloe-jennings-white_n_3625033.html


> I've also told you previously about women with AIS
> or other intersex conditions who are genetically
> male but were assigned female sex at birth or like
> Lady Colin Campbell who is totally female but had
> a fused labia and was assigned male at birth when
> she was not.
>
> The only difference is in your mind.

CAIS is an actual sexual condition that effects (on the high end of the estimate) 5 in 100,000 births, less than half that on the low estimate. These are not "transgender" individuals. They are born with an actual, verifiable, condition that is akin to indeterminate sex.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/


Or do you think the brain isn't "physical" and your brain has nothing to do with how you behave and act?

Go get a frontal lobotomy and let me know.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-ther
> e-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
>
>
> Or do you think the brain isn't "physical" and
> your brain has nothing to do with how you behave
> and act?
>
> Go get a frontal lobotomy and let me know.


Nice response. I'm not saying there may not be holistic influences, but once you move a malady into the brain, you're entering a different territory.

People with depression have markedly different MRI responses to stimuli than those without. And these tests help doctors determine a course of treatment to counter their depression. People with depression may also have actual physical differences in their brains when compared to a non-depressed control group. But none are considered out of the reach of treatment to resolve most issues surrounding depression. Are you on board for allowing doctors to develop a course of treatment to "cure" transsexualism?

http://theconversation.com/a-brain-scan-to-tell-if-youre-depressed-and-what-treatment-is-needed-75005

https://www.sovtexas.com/treatment/new-study-finds-physical-differences-depressed-brains/

And guess what? MRIs of people who suffer from Body Dysmorphic Disorder also show different brain functions than those who don't have BDD. And studies show a clear heritability link with BDD. This strongly suggests BDD may be a trait present from birth. Following your suggestion, shouldn't we allow these people to have their spinal cords severed, limbs removed, and whatever else altered to match how they feel? Since they're clearly wired differently, are you so cruel that won't allow them the peace that comes from altering their bodies to match their "innate" feelings about reality?

https://bdd.iocdf.org/professionals/neurobiology-of-bdd/

Shouldn't science help us create a consistent world view? Physical and biological truths should have broad applications if we can demonstrate this.

If a person with depression displays MRI brain function and actual physical differences to their brains, but we have developed pharmacological resources that resolve most of these symptoms, shouldn't we offer that to them?

If a person feels strongly they were intended to be an amputee or quadriplegic, and we can show them they have altered brain functions that may play a role in this thinking, shouldn't we encourage them to seek treatment that can counteract these feelings even if they're hard-wired from birth?

If a person feels they are born with the wrong physical sex, and we can show them this may be a result of different brain function and even physical differences to their brain, shouldn't we convince them that the only actual remedy is to mutilate their body to conform with their feelings? Shouldn't we also universally condemn as a hate-filled bigots anyone who questions the immutability of this condition? Shouldn't we also shut down funding for any research that would explore other options that could remedy their transsexual symptoms?

Welcome to science in a confirmation-biased political world.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2018 05:36PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

So now do those brain scans on the animals and see how many exhibit transgender related data. You can't say animals don't experience gender dysphoria. To my knowledge we don't know one way or the other. But we certainly t see ambiguous gender births and homosexual behaviors in animals too. So I would expect we would seee the brain variances too.

It should be to the individual to decide if their brain or body is the one out of sync and pursue the medical path from that. I've seen both expressions of that in people.

We also know that there is fluidity to identity and preferences in people so its no surprise to find people whose expression had changed again. You simply can't argue from these cases that they were wrong or right in the first case. We don't know or understand enough about it yet. All we can do is help these people live their best self determined life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2018 12:11PM by dogblogger.

And of course it is you that gets to define science.

What if I drugged you, put you in a cell, put you in a dress and when you woke up you were told that you were insane because you keep insisting that you are male.

No matter what you forced to do or wear you would always know that you aren't female.


The issue is not DNA or the sex of human biological cells -- and that's not 100% set in concrete either. Your sexual identity is innate and cannot be changed.

We don't know how it develops but it's fixed. And it doesn't always develop in parallel with anatomy or DNA. There are plenty of stories about trans kids who have made their sexual identity known at very early ages:

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a43702/transgender-child-kimberly-shappley/


It's not mutilation. It's no different than medication or corrective surgery for a birth defect -- which in fact it is.

Why does this bother you?


It's the same as abortion. Fundies say they are "pro-life" and opposed to a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy but they could care less about a child after it's born.

With very few exceptions fundies focus on trans females as being a "menace to society" and not trans males. That makes it pretty clear that patriarchy, not mental health, is their primary concern.

So, you seem to be willing to subject someone to a life of permanent rejection and unpersonhood simply to assuage your fear of being sexually aroused by a female of unknown genetic provenance.

Your version of "help" just drives people to suicide.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2018 06:13PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if I drugged you, put you in a cell, put you
> in a dress and when you woke up you were told that
> you were insane because you keep insisting that
> you are male.
>
> No matter what you forced to do or wear you would
> always know that you aren't female.
>
>
> The issue is not DNA or the sex of human
> biological cells -- and that's not 100% set in
> concrete either. Your sexual identity is innate
> and cannot be changed.
>
> We don't know how it develops but it's fixed. And
> it doesn't always develop in parallel with anatomy
> or DNA. There are plenty of stories about trans
> kids who have made their sexual identity known at
> very early ages:
>
> https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a4
> 3702/transgender-child-kimberly-shappley/
>
>
> It's not mutilation. It's no different than
> medication or corrective surgery for a birth
> defect -- which in fact it is.
>
> Why does this bother you?
>
>
> It's the same as abortion. Fundies say they are
> "pro-life" and opposed to a woman's right to
> choose to terminate a pregnancy but they could
> care less about a child after it's born.
>
> With very few exceptions fundies focus on trans
> females as being a "menace to society" and not
> trans males. That makes it pretty clear that
> patriarchy, not mental health, is their primary
> concern.
>
> So, you seem to be willing to subject someone to a
> life of permanent rejection and unpersonhood
> simply to assuage your fear of being sexually
> aroused by a female of unknown genetic
> provenance.
>
> Your version of "help" just drives people to
> suicide.

I see you're going full blown sciency on me. Any discussion apart from accepted orthodoxy WILL KILL PEOPLE. Because science is all about pursing truth and any examination of unorthodox theories is PURE HATRED AND MURDER. Thanks to open minded intellectuals like you, science is in great hands. Oh, and your self awareness level is a bit south of zero.

Just as a refresher, you're the one who bemoaned there was a death of science, so let's recap:

Depression is birthed entirely in the brain. Sufferers will display different responses on MRI against a control group, and often will have physical differences to their brain. Treatments are available and encouraged. They are frequently effective.

BDD is birthed entirely in the brain. Sufferers will display different responses on MRI against a control group, and often will have physical differences to their brain. Additionally, this trait has evidence it is heritable. Treatments are available and encouraged with mixed results.

Transexualism is birthed entirely in the brain. Sufferers will display different responses on MRI against a control group, and often will have physical differences to their brain. It may also be heritable. Suggestions that this brain disorder is unlike every other known brain disorder are condemned. No scientific study is allowed, because only bigots and homophobes question its immutability.

An NIH study found that more than 60% of those seeking sex reassignment surgery had psychiatric comorbidity issues. And your response to this is ... any discussion of psychiatric intervention as a method to resolve issues faced by transsexuals is birthed in hatred. And any suggestion short of surgical mutilation is essentially wishing death on these people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25180172

And guess what study cannot find funding? One researching the growing number of those seeking to reverse their sex reassignment surgeries: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/psychotherapist-gender-assignment-surgery-reverse-research-stop-trans-bath-spa-university-james-a7965281.html

Will you be so kind as to forward a list of the people and their conditions I secretly wish were dead because I encourage science to delve more deeply into them? And while you're at it, will you create a list of other science issues and aternatives that we're not allowed to discuss, because doing so WILL KILL PEOPLE?

But remember, be sure to keep it sciency!

So now there's some kind of super duper conspiracy to "silence" someone who "knows" the real truth -- like the climate change hoax, right?

Use your common sense and forget conspiracies.

The only place that I know of that forces people to undergo gender surgery is Iran -- and it's for very religious and patriarchal ideological reasons. It's a means to force cisgendered gay males to be women as a "cure" for homosexuality -- which officially does not exist in Iran. That most certainly is denial of reality and science.

There are few "trans regret" cases and you don't even bother to mention family or societal pressure:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/myths-about-transition-regrets_b_6160626.html

The only "regret" that I know of was the 70+ year old woman that I met who wished she was growing up now instead of the 1940s so she could have the life she wanted instead of the life she was forced to live -- but it's never too late:
https://nypost.com/2017/03/29/transgender-wwii-veteran-comes-out-as-a-woman-at-90/

If you were a cold, hungry homeless teen and you had to choose between living on the streets or going back home to the parents who threw you out what would you do? The fact that the vast majority of kids in that situation don't go back home should tell you something.


Again I ask: Why do you care?

I stand by my statement that most cisgendered hetero males who are disturbed by gay or trans people have problems with their own sexuality or are afraid of it.

I care because people I knew killed themselves and I've met others whose lives were destroyed simply because they wanted to be treated equally.

If I see someone like Andjea Pegic I just think "wow, she's pretty." If I see someone like Caitlyn Jenner I think "too bad she didn't get to compete as herself. At least now she can live her life without being forced to be something she was not." If I hear of a young man like Mack Beggs, I ask myself "why are they making him compete against girls? Religion? Patriarchy? Intolerance? Just plain hate?" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-second-texas-state-girls-championship/

I don't think "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" or "loony lefties are trying to make the sky green when it's really blue" when you simply treat people with fairness and common decency.

Sorry, I'm not buying your false "concern."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2018 07:58PM by anybody.

Again, I just want to note, that you make an emotional appeal here without a shred of actual science. And you started a topic decrying the death of science.

And now you're dismissing what I say because you doubt that I care? Exactly where is that found in the literature as a compelling element to a scientific finding? If you care more or less than any other human on earth, exactly how does that factor into a discussion about how to treat the symptoms of someone struggling with trans issues?

Um it doesn't. It's just more virtue signaling. "I care more than you do, so shut up. You just want them dead."

Why the hell did you even start this topic if all you were going to do is demonstrate how you personally have no respect whatsoever for how science actually works, and prefer to personally attack someone who disagrees with you?

Good move suggesting that an actual scientific examination of a topic is tantamount to climate change denial. Red herrings are an increasingly important element in all science discussions. And your personal experience is what science would call anecdotal evidence. There are actual persons out there who are regretting their sex change surgeries. And strangely enough, they're among the most criticized and hated people in the trans community. Imagine that. http://www.sexchangeregret.com/research

Your self awareness is laughable. Science is not about personal attacks against those who suggest options you disagree with. It's not even about how many friends you or I may have who have attempted suicide for any specific or non specific reason. It's about data and results. And that's something you seem entirely unconcerned with. And that's why you are part of the problem that you cite as the subject of this topic.

And this isn't a "right" or "left" problem. There are plenty of left wing anti-trans feminists.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism


Stop doing the cardinal who refused to look though Galileo's telescope act or concocting "secret suppressed science" conspiracies.


I didn't bring this up because of trans issues.

I'm alarmed by the trend that I've witnessed during my lifetime -- the advancement of religious dogma and pseudoscience at the expense of science and rational thought.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2018 08:33PM by anybody.

I knew someone who felt they were the wrong sex.

After psychological counselling and evaluation it was decided that he was a suitable candidate for sexual reassignment and he had the operation to become she.

Unfortunately within 18 months she realised that she had made a dreadful mistake, that she wasn't really a she that she was really a he.

So she went through another set of painful operations to reassign her sexuality as a man. Obviously as her testicles had been removed and discarded and she had to have her vagina removed and a new penis built, this was not easy.

https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/07/17/ex-trans-activists-exposed-big-name-behind-their-fight-against-gender-transit

And you also don't mention if family and/or societal rejection played a part.

Looks more like an incompetent writer had a deadline to meet, and an editor slapped a click-bait headline on it to salvage something out of it.

Well... that was fun.

I categorically reject the premise of that article. It is based on a poll intended to influence the responses to specific answers and it asks that I "trust" science.

First what the fuck do we mean by the costs of scientific research? Are we talking money, because if we are I too wonder if some of the benefits outweigh the costs primarily because I wonder if there are any benefits for some research. Another point, the obvious point that age and education matter in general is drowned out by the stupid comparisons to very specific ideas that are either supported or not because of age and educations. They should have asked me why younger people support human caused climate change but not vaccines and why older people support vaccines and not climate change. I would have told them it is age and education without a stupid study.

Bottom line is this article is intended to create a political need for funding for science not a scientific need. If people want their shit funded they should ask for valuable shit to be funded, not bullshit.

Oh, and OP one of the reasons why people so vehemently oppose research is because they see it as fundamentally biased. And for many pieces of research I agree. That has got to change or we are going to find ourselves latched on to another round of stupid fucking third rail sacrosanct fallacies. Science must be challenged so it can get it right, accept the challenges and be grateful when the challenge uncovers something wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2018 11:34AM by jacob.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science must be challenged so it can
> get it right, accept the challenges and be
> grateful when the challenge uncovers something
> wrong.

Amen, brother :)

What is fascinting is:
How topics of this catergory generate such vivid emotional responses.



Why might that be?

Perhaps because nothing is more fundamental than the freedom of the individual to determine how he lives his life. Religions--not all, but certainly the Judeao-Christo-Islamic tradition--has usurped that right of self-determination.

This issue is the battleground for personal autonomy. People who claim to be libertarians in general sometimes reverse course and assert that in this most intimate and personal of areas, it is the state or religion that gets to decide how people live their lives.

That's why the debate becomes so visceral. If the state can determine a person's gender and sexual identity (different things), it can determine everything.

I was a public school teacher for over thirty years and met only one or two parents who had a problem in this area. I was in a very diverse inner city school with parents who would be most likely to be uneducated in the sciences.

Worrying about non-problems puts energy in areas that don't need it which means more serious problems are neglected.

Many would disagree that it's a "non-problem."

For example:

https://ncse.com/taking-action/stop-kansas-climate-change-denial-bill

Hie, you're part of the problem.

First, the bill you reference died in committee about 4 years ago. Not sure how a dead bill can threaten anyone.

Second, did you actually read the bill? It proposes equipping students to critically examine the data that goes into climate science. It encourages actual critical thinking.

Oh the horror.

Part of the problem with climate science discussions is that the climate priesthood has declared there is a certain orthodoxy that cannot be critically examined, and anyone who would suggest there is a wealth of data, some of which does not support the orthodoxy, must be silenced.

If you really believe that the current orthodoxy surrounding climate science is unassailable and irrefutably true with no possible alternative explanations, why would you discourage a critical examination of it? You sound like a Mormon who knows it's true, but will insist the faithful must never look at sites like this.


AN ACT concerning schools; relating to courses for instruction; pertaining
to science.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. (a) The state board of education shall provide a course of
instruction in science. Such course of instruction shall:
(1) Provide information to students of scientific evidence which both
supports and counters a scientific theory or hypothesis; and
(2) assist students in developing critical thinking skills to evaluate
scientific theories or hypotheses.
(b) The legislature recognizes that the teaching of certain scientific
topics, such as climate science, may be controversial. The legislature
encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an
objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such
scientific theory or hypothesis are covered.
Sec. 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its
publication in the statute book.

"Teach the controversy" when there IS no controversy is cover for bullshit, and it's entirely dishonest.

I'm not "part of the problem" for pointing out dishonest bullshit.

Exactly. It is the critical thinking about the increasing amount of evidence and facts observed and studied that RESULTED in understanding climate change.

This is the opposite of expecting a preconceived conclusion from a religion (based on nothing except the desire to protect dogma) to be considered on equal footing.

Sorry, you're the one peddling crap.

Kindly explain why there are a plethora of websites dedicated to "debunking" the claims of those who question the orthodoxy of AGW? Have you read their stuff? They're taking on CERN studies and data from universities and "rogue" climate scientists.

You're actually arguing in favor of keeping information out of the hands of students because you deem it unworthy of examination. That's not how critical thinking works. That's Mormonism 101.

There are substantial, serious scientific studies that call into question the I-know-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt certainty that humans are responsible for climate change. Sun cycles, cosmic rays, warming events prior to the industrial era, the impact of gravitational pull during historic periods all have actual, university studies presenting data showing climate impact that has nothing to do with human interaction.

Combine this with the religious zeal of some AGW advocates who insist the only real solution is massive wealth transfer from 1st world nations to 3rd world nations, and it's a topic that is ripe for discussion.

If only such were allowed.

Lol.

It's a huge problem. This brings us back to a post by anybody several weeks ago lamenting the triumph of emotionalism and demagoguery over rationality and science. We live in an age of intentional ignorance, and we and our children are already paying the price.

Ignore it if you will, but don't expect us to follow your lead.

Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: March 04, 2018 02:31AM



I have lived to see the end of reality - and that makes me very, very sad (n/t)

The Destruction Of The Library Of Alexandria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dELhVMET3E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYpU1e3m9G0



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2018 07:57AM by anybody.

As soon as she stated the island is eroding due to rising sea level she let on she knows only what she is told about science. It is an established FACT the sea level continues to rise at a steady rate of about 6 inches per century and has been rising at this rate for over 400 years. Anybody who claims to be a scientist that is not also skeptical enough to search out the data is not realy into science.

Wrong.

You say that sea level has been rising at about 6 inches per century for 400 years. That is wildly inaccurate. For two millennia, the rate was about 0.7 centimeters per century. Around 1800, the rate accelerated and in the last century was between 10-20 centimeters.

Why would the speed of sea level rise accelerate by some 2,000% after 1800? Because that is when the Industrial Revolution occurred.

I sort of view science denial for the sake of science denial as a measure of alienation. The anti-vaxers, flat earthers, those that don't believe we ever went to the moon or that gravity exists are extremely distrustful of government, science and the very societies that they live in. I think it is as worrying as the rise of radical groups on the left and right and it might be predictive of increasing trouble on the right and left in the future.

The whole climate change thing is more complicated because climate change denial has been heavily funded by fossil fuel companies. So this is occurring in a setting where enormous amounts of money are being spent to buy politicians and scientists to muddy the waters for the short term benefit of the corporations. Corporations only think in short term now. If they thought beyond the next quarterly reports, I'd be shocked. So this isn't some grass roots thing. It is being heavily funded.

Arguments about the science of trans people is just our culture war's transition from demonizing gay people to demonizing trans people. The only answer in the long run is for people to become more familiar with trans people in their day to day lives. That is what worked with gay people. There are far fewer out trans people, so that is going to take longer. When we get to the point where trans people are generally accepted, I guess another group will have to be singled out. Not sure who is next on the list.

Normally I'd just laugh at this -- but this kind of thing widely believed by fundies:

http://www.gayly.com/man-plagues-okc-flyers-warning-demons-cloned-transexual-bodies

Demons?

In the twenty-first century?

What's next -- witch trials with "spectral evidence?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXCdqGX3tL4


Why would any rational person believe this rubbish?

Or does religious denial of reality and disdain for science predispose people towards irrationality?

https://www.medicaldaily.com/transgender-peoples-brain-structures-are-different-cisgender-folks-study-423107

https://www.vox.com/cards/transgender-myths-fiction-facts/transgender-people-mentally-ill-myth



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2018 08:21AM by anybody.