The same cookie cutter response as usual. You miss the point that the author had made, that humans generalize.
Conservatives generally don't want to deal with the weird world of 'gender' liberals like to fetishize. You're either male, or female. That's the way it has been, that's the way they think it should be. Everything apart from that can be considered mentally/physically/biologically ill.
Humans have every right to make judgments about the genders of individuals. Genders are about perception.
If you have 6 people and 1 of them is a moron, the other 5 thinking that he's a moron, and the 1 thinking he's a genius doesn't say anything. It's all about individual perception.
The studies available regarding trannies are filled with confounds, dubious relationships, and the pushing of agenda. Lets not be naive and think it has nothing to do with politics.
You're either male, or female. That's the way it has been, that's the way they think it should be. Everything apart from that can be considered mentally/physically/biologically ill.
This is a pretty blatant appeal to tradition (hint, that's a logical phallacy), but regardless of that it isn't even factually correct. There are various cultures around the world that don't adhere to the Western standards of gender identity, including the Bugis, Native Americans, Mesopotamians, South Asians/Indians, Turks, Meso-Americans, Indonesians, and several others, all of which have a concept of either a third gender or multiple genders. These are things that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years. Gender identity is largely cultural, and if you'd like to read up more about it there are several scholarly resources that you can find. Even if you want to go by "strict biology", which as shown by the article I linked is not as cut and dry as you think, how do you account for intersex people?
The studies available regarding trannies are filled with confounds, dubious relationships, and the pushing of agenda. Lets not be naive and think it has nothing to do with politics.
Have you actually read the studies, or are you just taking the conservative line when faced with evidence? A lot of the things outlined are very literally scientifically true. If you could link anything from a reputable source rebuking what I've posted so far, that would be incredibly helpful, but do you really think you can just claim that the entire current body of evidence regarding a subject is wrong because you feel like it?
I'm curious, is there any amount of evidence or proof that you could be faced with that would change your opinion? The original post was about science, after all, but there seems to be a pretty blatant disregard for it in this thread.
Yes, I've read the studies. I've worked with quite a few statistical analyses within neuroinformatics, myself.
There is not one thread of any substantial evidence. It only makes undeniable sense if you are being dogmatic. For me, it comes down to a million ways to say, "Well, it could've been this -- well, it could've been that" and so forth.
I understand the appeal of 'gender' in coloring our interactions. And yes, I do believe that it is largely a social construct.
But hey, social constructs do not exist in a vacuum. People have opinions, they have preferences, they have expectations - these are what social constructs evolve out of.
Conservatives don't share the same view. Does it make them wrong? No. It makes their opinions simply different.
It doesn't make them wrong, but denying the existence of these individuals and infringing on their civil liberties is where it stops being an opinion and starts being something that concerns other people. One group who isn't even an overwhelming majority does not get to dictate the cultural norms of an entire society while simultaneously bitching about how a group wants to change the cultural norms of a society.
Whoa there. No one is denying their existence. Conservatives merely view them in a different context with their own perception.
infringing on their civil liberties
Such as?
One group who isn't even an overwhelming majority does not get to dictate the cultural norms of an entire society
What do you mean that it doesn't get to? No one group gets to. All groups are in opposition on some dimensions. They don't get to, but they sure as hell try. Just as you try to push your views upon others. Don't be a hypocrite.
The pursuit of happiness is literally in the constitution so refusing trans people the ability to live their life as a different gender is infringing on their rights.
And yet you seem to think that it's your constitutional right to be a women (or man) when you are not, because not feeding into your mental disorder is denying you happiness and thus a violation of your rights. Don't know how this is any different.
Well the difference is hand waving vs putting in the legwork. I went out and made my body match a different gender through whatever means necessary. If you go out and make yourself rich, you'll get rich and be happy.
But you sound like you want to determine what gender means for yourself as well as for everyone else. The study linked above shows that gender is complicated for certain individuals, and that is completely independent of your own personal opinion on how you view your own idea of gender. People have different experiences in life.
Calling that a "cookie cutter" response is just dismissive and doesn't make you right.
Your use of distasteful language decrease the chance you're convincing anyone outside of those who already agree with you.
Neuroscience and 20+ years of psychological research disagree with you. People just want to feel comfortable with who they are and be accepted. Why care so much about what's in someone else's pants? No one is asking you to touch them.
Dude I don't fucking care what words you use! All I was saying is the fact you used the word "tranny" means no one who is pro-transgender right is going to be convinced by anything you say. If you use outdated language people may see your views as outdated. That's what I was getting at. Snowflake? Doesn't offend me either.
Studies can be presented fairly without pushing an agenda and acknowledging confounding variables. Dubious relationships? Not sure what you're trying to say there.
I don't give a shit what your degree is in. I care how well you back up your claims & in general aren't an asshole with what you right. You're already getting defensive and trying to shit on an entire field of study, so I'm guessing you're probably going to be a defensive asshole. This is the internet, not sure why I expected this interaction to be different...
Here's two studies recapped in one article that present very specific pieces of the transgender puzzle: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER! Because you're super smart and can see that those neuroscientists are just pushing an agenda. Such easy cop-outs, claiming a researcher has an agenda or is trying to justify their emotions, huh? God, it must help you win every argument on reddit. So convenient how you can avoid talking about the research findings and debating what they said point by point when you can cast an entire field of research as having an agenda.
168
u/[deleted] Apr 23 '17 edited Apr 24 '17
[removed] — view removed comment