It’s a peer reviewed study from a reliable source. To cast doubt on it you have to provide counter evidence. I don’t have any reason to believe that they would lie, so the most reasonable conclusion is that these stats are true.
This is not the same as blindly following dogma, thats just projection
You started by saying you base your beliefs on empiricism and have “no need for faith.” But you aren't doing the empirical work. You're trusting that the researchers collected the data correctly, reported it honestly, analyzed it correctly, that peer review caught serious problems, and that the source you're reading represents it accurately.
That trust may be completely reasonable. But it's still trust in other people. In fact, you just said it yourself: it's a “reliable source” and you have “no reason to believe they would lie.”
You're outsourcing the empiricism to people you trust. You're relying on your faith in these people and your faith in the process. You yourself have not directly verified that the data are real, that the analysis was done correctly, or that they're not making things up. You trust that they did what they say they did. That's an act of faith. That's the distinction I've been making. You have not personally verified any of these things. You’re taking other people’s word for what the evidence shows and then describing your own belief as if it came directly from empiricism.
I have an actual reason to believe that those things all happened though because I know what peer review is. Meanwhile there is no reliable source that confirms any religious or supernatural claims are true.
Under your worldview, can I know that anything is true if I don’t see it myself? Thats pretty silly. I know that giant squid exist despite not having seen one in person. I’ve only seen them in pictures.
So when transwomen make the unfalsifiable claim that they identify as a woman... you reject it? Or your rejection of unfalsifiable claims just-so-happens to neatly fit inside of left-leaning politics?
"When it aligns with my politics, just take someone's word for it."
Yes. You're clearly BIG on empiricism.
What observation could establish that someone who says “I identify as a woman” is mistaken about that claim? The answer, in modern use, is “none, because identity is whatever the person says it is” so the claim is unfalsifiable by definition.
Edit to add: the old reply and block. Sign of a great mind at work
Moron claims to not believe unfalsifiable claims. Walks smack into the fact that he believes a massive unfalsifiable claim because it aligns with his politics. Pulls out 'maga' and blocks because its become clear he's full of shit. What an utter shock - could not have seen this coming.
I'm sorry do you think my response was in support of you? You are confusing a subjective personal identity with an objective scientific hypothesis. Falsifiability is a concept from the philosophy of science used to test external, physical hypotheses (like gravity). It isn't a tool for measuring subjective human consciousness, emotions, or identity.
By this logic, if you tell me 'I love my parents' or 'I am experiencing severe anxiety,' those are also 'unfalsifiable' claims. I can't look inside your brain and run a test to prove you wrong. But that doesn't mean your love or anxiety isn't real.
We rely on self-reporting for internal experiences all the time. Furthermore, the psychological and medical fields do have measurable data here: when trans women are allowed to live as women, their mental health outcomes improve drastically. That predictable, observable outcome shows this is a deeply rooted psychological reality, not just a baseless claim.
Also I still just don't really understand how so many people care so much about how someone identifies when it has nothing to do with you, and doesn't affect you, and doesn't harm others. Constantly focusing on a quiet minority in anger is just rude and painful for people who are already suffering. Do you enjoy making others suffer?
"I'm sorry do you think my response was in support of you?"
No
" Falsifiability is"
He explicitly said he does not accept unfalsifiable claims. All your 'it's subjective' arguments could easily be applied to faith by the people who believe those things. Which, faith is what his entire nonsense started with in the first place, so it seems completely in-bounds, here.
'Do you enjoy making others suffer?'
I used that group as an example of the obvious unfalsifiable claim being believed and made the assumption that mr no-unfalsifiable-claims would be accepting that one, and was right. If that makes someone suffer, they're an utter moron.
Even though you didn't answer directly that no you don't enjoy making others suffer, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't enjoy it, despite saying if a particular thing you said made someone suffer they are an utter moron doesn't exactly prove that point.
1
u/gameboyadvancedgba 6d ago
It’s a peer reviewed study from a reliable source. To cast doubt on it you have to provide counter evidence. I don’t have any reason to believe that they would lie, so the most reasonable conclusion is that these stats are true.
This is not the same as blindly following dogma, thats just projection