The same woo-woo bin
Which party holds the wack belief and which party holds the other kind?
Other way around, I think you’ll find.
Tip Jar
Which party holds the wack belief and which party holds the other kind?
Other way around, I think you’ll find.
What if I believe that trans people exist, but that they aren’t valid? Where does that put me on the scale between Scientific Consensus and FlatEarthism?
If a particular grandiose claim is supported by science, the likelihood is that it would meet at least some of these criteria:
1.) It would have come out of science.
2.) It would answer more than one question.
3.) It would be testable and falsifiable.
4.) It would have been hotly debated for years.
5.) It would be consistent across disciplines.
6.) It would generate new hypotheses and research.
7.) It would use terms and explanations which are clear.
If the “scientific claim” can be brought to its knees by “define ‘woman,’” it’s not really a scientific claim.
The scientific consensus they talk about here involves DSDs: there are a small fraction of people who are very difficult to classify as either male or female due to malfunctions in the sexual development of the fetus. That’s pretty much it. It’s not new. It’s not groundbreaking. It’s not controversial.
From what I can tell, the only thing new is science popularizers taking these facts and extrapolating some Grand Truth about how fuzzy borders within a category means the category is unreliable and can be ignored in favor of what people know to be true about their authentic inner selves. Which is NOT scientific.
The issue isn’t even defined on a way that can be tested through science.
[…] a comment by Sastra on The same woo-woo […]
It is far from a 99% consensus of science. Of all the scientists I know or know of, it is more like the other direction. (I realize that is not a scientific poll, but I don’t think that has been done). Scientific consensus means that scientists agree. This does not meet that criterion.
Yes, there are scientists who will risk their reputations (and possibly sanity) to claim scientific support for this, but many scientists are either quiet or quietly submissive to the trans lobby for fear of losing their positions or their funding.
“Do you believe trans people exist?”
“Define trans people.”
This runs into problems in the oh so expansive version of the “trans umbrella”, but for the moment:
“People whose gender identity doesn’t – ”
“Define gender identity.”
This, too, runs into problems in the oh so expansive version of a universe of genders, but:
“The innate feeling of whether you are male or female.”
“Define female.”
People who claim to be trans clearly exist. Whether they are trans depends entirely on what is meant by that. Personally, for clarity, I would prefer to respond to the first question by saying “I believe that people with gender dysphoria exist” or “I believe people who claim to be trans exist”. (But we know that the person asking the question is going to demand a Yes or No response; seems to come with the territory in this nonsense.)
(Wasn’t that a recent insightful comment about disbelief in a group of people being God’s Chosen extrapolated to mean disbelief in the existence of Jews? Something like that?)
I now have the worrying thought that my aura is not smooth.
I HAVE AN UNSMOOTH AURA AND EVERYONE ELSE CAN TELL!
Sackbut #6
That sounds like something I may have written:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2021/guest-post-zyklon-b-doesnt-give-a-crap-about-your-pronouns/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=guest-post-zyklon-b-doesnt-give-a-crap-about-your-pronouns
It was meant to be roughly analogous to this:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2021/guest-post-if-they-had-any-real-examples/#comment-2870300
Bjarte #8
Yes, that was the post, thanks. Steps 2-4 of that progression.
Bruce:
You think you have it bad? My rough endoplasmic reticula are too smooth and my smooth endoplasmic reticula are too rough :(