The Dangers of Anti-Intellectual Propaganda

[realibrad]

But saying 'biology is part of it' (which I would assume everyone agrees about) doesn't tell us anything useful. It's not just a 'ratio', or a proportion expressed as a percentage - how could it be? Genuinely I don't get what it would mean for it to be a simple percentage thing. Surely it has to be a complex interaction between the two? How would you, conceptually, reduce that complex contingent interaction to a question of percentages? You need to explain that in concrete terms - how would you measure such a percentage, by what hypothetical experiment?

You would think so right, but what started this was this comment.

Gender is a social construct, not a biological one. You are confusing sex (genetics) with gender. That has never changed, by the way, whatever you want to believe.

How's that for being willingly and embarassingly intelectually deficient? One can have a debate on "how many genders are 'reasonable,'" but you aren't yet capable of getting there, because you tap out before you can even grasp the terms.

But the straw you have tossed right out of the gates is noted.

To which I responded with...

This is wrong. All of the research agrees that biology is a massive contributor to gender identity. You just gave a perfect example of how anti-science ideas can spread.

He then asked for evidence that it was 100% biological. I said that my stance now is the same as it was, which is that its both not just one or the other. He said that I was lying that I believed it was only biological. I showed a discussion weeks ago where I disagreed with someone that said it was only biological, and then others jumped in.

So no, not everyone agrees that biology is part of it.

What is super weird is that the person that said it was only social has a degree in biology. That is still confusing to me.

As for the %, I never said I knew that, and I don't think anyone does either. I simply said that biology was a major contributor because that is what the research shows.

 

[pmv]

You would think so right, but what started this was this comment.



To which I responded with...



He then asked for evidence that it was 100% biological. I said that my stance now is the same as it was, which is that its both not just one or the other. He said that I was lying that I believed it was only biological. I showed a discussion weeks ago where I disagreed with someone that said it was only biological, and then others jumped in.

So no, not everyone agrees that biology is part of it.

What is super weird is that the person that said it was only social has a degree in biology. That is still confusing to me.

As for the %, I never said I knew that, and I don't think anyone does either. I simply said that biology was a major contributor because that is what the research shows.

OK, I grant you that one. I disagree with zinfamous insofar as I don't think its justified to say outright that biology has no role in gender, I think it's going too far to make such an absolute claim. Though I'm not sure that was their central point anyway, I think they were just making a point about terminology ('gender' vs 'sex').

But I am entirely unconvinced we can currently say anything meaningful about what that role is. The problem of 'controlling for' culture and society appears to me to be insurmountable.

And a lot of what gets said about the topic seems to me to massively overstate what we actually know.

 

[realibrad]

OK, I grant you that one. I disagree with zinfamous insofar as I don't think its justified to say outright that biology has no role in gender, I think it's going too far to make such an absolute claim. Though I'm not sure that was their central point anyway, I think they were just making a point about terminology ('gender' vs 'sex').

But I am entirely unconvinced we can currently say anything meaningful about what that role is. The problem of 'controlling for' culture and society appears to me to be insurmountable.

And a lot of what gets said about the topic seems to me to massively overstate what we actually know.

Why do you think that though? I have given you multiple studies that show how personality traits are linked to biological changes. There is not a question in that field that biology plays not only a role, but a significant one. As I said before, people are all unique in so far as to the ratios, but, it's still there. The research is clear.

I do not understand the hesitation on this. It's as if people want to disagree with this topic because it's special. I am not understanding what makes this different. When a biologist makes a statement that goes against the consensus of the empirical evidence something is wrong. I'm not trying to rub that in so I won't use names anymore, but I am very confused.

 

[pmv]

Why do you think that though? I have given you multiple studies that show how personality traits are linked to biological changes. There is not a question in that field that biology plays not only a role, but a significant one. As I said before, people are all unique in so far as to the ratios, but, it's still there. The research is clear.

I do not understand the hesitation on this. It's as if people want to disagree with this topic because it's special. I am not understanding what makes this different. When a biologist makes a statement that goes against the consensus of the empirical evidence something is wrong. I'm not trying to rub that in so I won't use names anymore, but I am very confused.

But explain to me how you can perform a randomised, controlled experiment in this domain, with a large enough sample and the ability to control for all other factors. How do you bracket-out social factors and the effect of the interaction between physical sexual difference and both society and the physical world, given that we only have existing humans and the one world to examine?

It's different because it's dealing with human beings in all their contingent complexity. It isn't physics (the only real science!) where you can isolate factors and perform controlled experiments.

To be fair, I have similar sorts of doubts about a lot of social and medical science, though in the latter we do have some grasp of the underlying mechanisms at least.

I'll be fully convinced when we get to the point of explaining the mechanisms all the way from neurons and hormones to behaviour. A billion equations ending in "= conciousness".

 

[interchange]

Is it fair to say that biology is already conclusive on this topic. Forget about societal labels or identity for a moment. Let’s just focus on the hard nonpartisan realities of biology.

If someone is biologically born with certain anatomical realities, it means that certain health screenings, procedures and medical approaches are forever linked to their body. Biology will always be the more prevalent reality, and at some level, dictate behaviors and to a certain extent identity as well.

In a delivery room, a doctor will never declare “its a non-binary gender fluid”

What this means is that lets say you are a FTM transgender. You identify as male. Your ID and legal name is that of a male. But you still have biological realities that would require things like health checks by a gynecologist. That does not change. That will probably never change. But your identity will create friction. A health care provider or insurance company will question why someone legally documented as a male would receive say a mammogram.

I also think it is possible to treat transgender people with dignity and respect while also acknowledging these certain biological realities, and do it in a way that is not disrespectful to how they identify.

Guess what? Doctors aren't idiots. We know the difference between sex and gender.

 

[realibrad]

But explain to me how you can perform a randomised, controlled experiment in this domain, with a large enough sample and the ability to control for all other factors. How do you bracket-out social factors and the effect of the interaction between physical sexual difference and both society and the physical world, given that we only have existing humans and the one world to examine?

It's different because it's dealing with human beings in all their contingent complexity. It isn't physics (the only real science!) where you can isolate factors and perform controlled experiments.

To be fair, I have similar sorts of doubts about a lot of social and medical science, though in the latter we do have some grasp of the underlying mechanisms at least.

I'll be fully convinced when we get to the point of explaining the mechanisms all the way from neurons and hormones to behaviour. A billion equations ending in "= conciousness".

It would depend on the study. Say they increase the level of testosterone to someone born XX to levels closer to what is found in people born XY (average). You then see the personality trait differences. You then look at the standard traits of both groups to if their means overlap or if they do not. We know that they do not, and when something like testosterone is boosted to get closer to the average XY levels we see a shift in those traits to the mean of people born XY.

Now, biology can trigger increased testosterone levels, but so can social things. That said, social triggers will never get you to the same levels, or even close for that matter, to the average of what someone whom is born XY would typically have.

So, we then see that personality traits are linked to testosterone and the more you have the more likely you are to have some traits. That is one of the studies I linked in my post to you a while back.

 

[realibrad]

Guess what? Doctors aren't idiots. We know the difference between sex and gender.

Oh, some are. There was an article I read about how trans people often find friction from doctors that do not want to treat them because they are trans. This is partly why trans people do not get checkups that cause preventable things to kill them.

 

[interchange]

Oh, some are. There was an article I read about how trans people often find friction from doctors that do not want to treat them because they are trans. This is partly why trans people do not get checkups that cause preventable things to kill them.

I didn't say all doctors accept the difference. They just know it. We aren't going to be confused as to whether certain medical care is indicated.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Guess what? Doctors aren't idiots. We know the difference between sex and gender.

I never said doctors are idiots.

When a child is born, we assign gender based entirely on sex, and I don’t see how that will change.

If you work at an insurance company, and you receive a claim for Bob Smith, male, to receive a mammogram, what would be your first inclination? Clerical error or transgender?

 

[interchange]

I never said doctors are idiots.

When a child is born, we assign gender based entirely on sex, and I don’t see how that will change.

If you work at an insurance company, and you receive a claim for Bob Smith, male, to receive a mammogram, what would be your first inclination? Clerical error or transgender?

We assign sex based on observed sex characteristics.

Fun fact. Men also get breast cancer and mammograms may be indicated and performed on men.

 

[Starbuck1975]

We assign sex based on observed sex characteristics.

Fun fact. Men also get breast cancer and mammograms may be indicated and performed on men.

So change the example to testicular cancer

 

[Gryz]

Republicans are laughing their asses off.

They just stole a trillion dollars from the american tax-payers. And gave it to their buddies.
And all that the American voters do, is talk about gender-issues, muslims, immigration, whether the cops are racists, whether global warmin is real, terrorists, guns, and more stuff that isn't important.

Republicans win.

 

[mect]

Republicans are laughing their asses off.

They just stole a trillion dollars from the american tax-payers. And gave it to their buddies.
And all that the American voters do, is talk about gender-issues, muslims, immigration, whether the cops are racists, whether global warmin is real, terrorists, guns, and more stuff that isn't important.

Republicans win.

I'm trying to figure out if this is sarcasm or not. Are you suggesting that gender issues, religious issues, immigration issues, racism issues, and global warming issues aren't important? What do you think is important?

 

[Amused]

That simply is not true. The consensus is that biology is part. There is not a consensus on what ratio, which is likely due to individual differences, but there is a consensus that it's not 100% social.

Unless you mean "not a consensus" in the way conservatives argue about climate change because one guy in the field is unsure.

I mean in the overall study of genders and gender identity. Not sex, but genders.

Yes, some aspects have been established, but there is still much to study and many, many unanswered questions that too many people answer out of ignorance to suit their worldview.

 

[Amused]

So new topic for my thread.

I had a debate with an alt-med/chemtrail/conspiracy believer.

I challenged them to show one innovative thing of value ever produced by a leading proponent of science denialism in the area of science they deny.

Be it a flat earth video producer.

A 9/11 truther.

Food babe

David Wolf

Mercola

Etc.

Now, name innovative things of value produced by science itself.

The true reality denying aspect of science denial is they are denying the discipline that literally makes everything around them and they use in their day to day lives work.

 

[interchange]

So change the example to testicular cancer

Oh that was just a fun fact. You are still conflating sex with gender. I know it's hard because the same words are most often used for either.

 

[woolfe9998]

So new topic for my thread.

I had a debate with an alt-med/chemtrail/conspiracy believer.

I challenged them to show one innovative thing of value ever produced by a leading proponent of science denialism in the area of science they deny.

Be it a flat earth video producer.

A 9/11 truther.

Food babe

David Wolf

Mercola

Etc.

Now, name innovative things of value produced by science itself.

The true reality denying aspect of science denial is they are denying the discipline that literally makes everything around them and they use in their day to day lives work.

Not to mention the very technology that they most often use these days to ply their drivel to the unwitting masses: the internet.

The notion that science denialists produce anything of scientific or technological value is oxymoronic. You won your challenge before it even began.

 

[realibrad]

I mean in the overall study of genders and gender identity. Not sex, but genders.

Yes, some aspects have been established, but there is still much to study and many, many unanswered questions that too many people answer out of ignorance to suit their worldview.

Its easily said that Gender for 90% falls into two categories of Male and Female. There is lots to learn sure, but to make statements that have been made you have to ignore what has been researched for some time now.

 

[IronWing]

I'm trying to figure out if this is sarcasm or not. Are you suggesting that gender issues, religious issues, immigration issues, racism issues, and global warming issues aren't important? What do you think is important?

To win elections, liberals need to talk about the economy. Trump talked about the economy and won. Sure, what he said about the economy was stupid but it also allowed him to win the states he needed to win. When liberals talk economics, they win. The issues you mention are important but they don't win elections for liberals.

 

[Amused]

Not to mention the very technology that they most often use these days to ply their drivel to the unwitting masses: the internet.

The notion that science denialists produce anything of scientific or technological value is oxymoronic. You won your challenge before it even began.

So an answer I got was Steve Jobs. He was an alt-med dupe who denied himself a 90%+ survival chance to follow an alt-med non cure for his rare, highly treatable form of pancreatic cancer.

And, as was obvious, I pointed out this was not his area of science denial. He produced nothing of value for medicine, only computers. The area of his science denial produced nothing of value... and it killed him to boot.

 

[mect]

To win elections, liberals need to talk about the economy. Trump talked about the economy and won. Sure, what he said about the economy was stupid but it also allowed him to win the states he needed to win. When liberals talk economics, they win. The issues you mention are important but they don't win elections for liberals.

Fair point.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Oh that was just a fun fact. You are still conflating sex with gender. I know it's hard because the same words are most often used for either.

I didn’t know about male breast cancer, you learn something new everyday.

I understand the distinction between sex and gender, and our society conflates the two because for the vast majority of people, those two things align. It is deeper than terminology, which is why there are ad campaigns some markets educating M2Fs that they still need to check for testicular cancer or F2Ms still need to see a gynecologist.

 

[bshole]

To win elections, liberals need to talk about the economy. Trump talked about the economy and won. Sure, what he said about the economy was stupid but it also allowed him to win the states he needed to win. When liberals talk economics, they win. The issues you mention are important but they don't win elections for liberals.

For me I can't think of a more important issue than the failing middle class. People need to realize that if the middle class goes, we become a third world nation. They need to understand that with that status comes a world of human suffering that is simply unimaginable to the citizens of Western democracies. I don't believe the middle class will ultimately fail because when enough workers reach a critical point of human suffering, labor will rise again and forcibly take back the fruits of their labor as they did in the past.

 

[realibrad]

So an answer I got was Steve Jobs. He was an alt-med dupe who denied himself a 90%+ survival chance to follow an alt-med non cure for his rare, highly treatable form of pancreatic cancer.

And, as was obvious, I pointed out this was not his area of science denial. He produced nothing of value for medicine, only computers. The area of his science denial produced nothing of value... and it killed him to boot.

That number seems to be way off.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/05/the-pancreatic-cancer-that-killed-steve-jobs/

"Pancreatic cancer is one of the faster spreading cancers; only about 4% of patients can expect to survive five years after their diagnosis. Each year, about 44,000 new cases are diagnosed in the U.S., and 37,000 people die of the disease."

 

[jackstar7]

That number seems to be way off.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/05/the-pancreatic-cancer-that-killed-steve-jobs/

"Pancreatic cancer is one of the faster spreading cancers; only about 4% of patients can expect to survive five years after their diagnosis. Each year, about 44,000 new cases are diagnosed in the U.S., and 37,000 people die of the disease."

If you don't think someone with billions of dollars has a higher than average chance of survival... I mean c'mon.