Social Gender ideology is dying, common sense prevailing

[krelianx]

This is hilarious actually, that a bunch of ideologically indoctrinated MAGA morons think science is on their side and yet not a single fucking study can back up the conflation of sex and gender they promote.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I cited an extensive report from the Yale School of Medicine, the World Health Organization, neuroscientific top peer-reviewed journals.

Why are these not serious? Where is the literature that shows the opposite of what I cited?

citing is not an opinion on anything. you're just excluding yourself from the debate by pointing to a "study".
and that's not a study at all, it's basically some people getting together and deciding on the meaning of words. it's an advisory board, nothing much.

it offered ZERO proof that gender even is a thing, they just decided it is.
But since you have no clue how science works, you just went along like the lemming you are.

Have YOU even read the Yale link?
It's literally admitting sex is immutable while gender is, well...some people FEEL differently.

Buddy, you gotta be fucking kidding me with this low level horseshit.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

That's a claim, not an argument. I can claim arbitrarily anything of the same format:

"There is no such thing as a division between cytoplasm and membrane."

Yeah, you kinda killed your own argument with that one because metabolical processes CAN be proven and identified and catalogued. the gender horseshit cannot be reproducible anywhere.

Please, refer to me to any literature that indicates that the gender-sex distinction is scientifically not credible.

You still haven't shown that it is scientifically credible. You just posted some dudes deciding among themselves that it is with zero scientific backing.

 

[italiamusica]

Maga's obsession with the lgbtq community is creepy as fuck. Mind your own fuckin business.

Exactly. There's never a time in my day, ever, where I think about how others live their life and get mad. How fucking stupid can someone be to get angry at something that doesn't affect them at all? The most obvious answer is that the majority of these people dream of sucking dick or being something other than straight, and it scares them, so they double down like a dumb fuck and keep talking shit.

MAGA shows time and time again that they're the real "snowflakes", losing their minds over something that doesn't matter

 

[krelianx]

citing is not an opinion on anything. you're just excluding yourself from the debate by pointing to a "study".
and that's not a study at all, it's basically some people getting together and deciding on the meaning of words. it's an advisory board, nothing much.

it offered ZERO proof that gender even is a thing, they just decided it is.
But since you have no clue how science works, you just went along like the lemming you are.

Have YOU even read the Yale link?
It's literally admitting sex is immutable while gender is, well...some people FEEL differently.

Buddy, you gotta be fucking kidding me with this low level horseshit.

Dude, I quoted articles from scientific journals pointing to the issues concerning the very division between sex and gender, and the report from Yale and WHO are not just some political statement but a congregation of scientists including the ISEM and IOM.

You are being extremely obtuse.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Exactly. There's never a time in my day, ever, where I think about how others live their life and get mad.

you just got mad

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Dude, I quoted articles from scientific journals pointing to the issues concerning the very division between sex and gender, and the report from Yale and WHO are not just some political statement but a congregation of scientists including the ISEM and IOM.

You are being extremely obtuse.

Appeal to authority is a dumb way to go. What you should do is actually read what's been posted in those "studies". cause if you do there's no scientific proof anywhere, it's just "trust me bro". I actually have rarely seen such non-scientific papers. Science is almost absent from them. If you take out self-identification from any of these studies, they completely collapse. The entire field of "gender studies" simply vanishes if you take out the self identification part.

That's why we have such a replication crisis now in science, and it's mostly from horseshit soft sciences that push out ideological bullshit that you simply have to take as gospel. Don't take my word for it, we're just dudes on the internet. Try finding a gender study that has zero self identification factors in it.

 

[krelianx]

Yeah, you kinda killed your own argument with that one because metabolical processes CAN be proven and identified and catalogued. the gender horseshit cannot be reproducible anywhere.

You still haven't shown that it is scientifically credible. You just posted some dudes deciding among themselves that it is with zero scientific backing.

I didn't kill any argument because all I said is you didn't make an argument. Which you didn't.

You are being intellectually dishonest. I can cite you studies that investigate the correlations between gender and sex, while distinguishing them clearly. They are not uncorrelated, but not identical.

Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation - PMC

Sexual identity and sexual orientation are independent components of a person’s sexual identity. These dimensions are most often in harmony with each other and with an individual’s genital sex, although not always. The present review discusses the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This is a cited article, one of the most cited in the field.

I am very happy to discuss specifics. But it seems to me that your answer to any source cited is "that's not a valid source" without ever saying why, or actually quoting anything, or arguing against it.

My hunch is you are just following your ideological inclination.

 

[krelianx]

Appeal to authority is a dumb way to go. What you should do is actually read what's been posted in those "studies". cause if you do there's no scientific proof anywhere, it's just "trust me bro". I actually have rarely seen such non-scientific papers. Science is almost absent from them. If you take out self-identification from any of these studies, they completely collapse. The entire field of "gender studies" simply vanishes if you take out the self identification part.

That's why we have such a replication crisis now in science, and it's mostly from horseshit soft sciences that push out ideological bullshit that you simply have to take as gospel.

So an appeal to authority is to cite scientific research? You are confusing providing evidence with appeals to authority.

Again, I am happy to dispute any of the findings of these studies. But you are the one who is not providing anything except skepticism. You are being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

So an appeal to authority is to cite scientific research? You are confusing providing evidence with appeals to authority.

Again, I am happy to dispute any of the findings of these studies. But you are the one who is not providing anything except skepticism. You are being intellectually dishonest.

Scepticism is actually the most intellectually honest thing you can do.
Science cannot survive without it.

 

[krelianx]

Scepticism is actually the most intellectually honest thing you can do.
Science cannot survive without it.

Skepticism without proposition is empty, proposition without skepticism is dogmatic.

Anybody can doubt anything for free. Descartes showed the extent of this.

You can question all you want, and I am all ears. But simply saying "this is wrong / not credible / ideology" without pointing to anything specific is not very satisfactory. I have spent a while here outlining the basic distinction. You can disagree, but you have provided absolutely nothing except disagreement.

 

[krelianx]

I am going to sit here and wait for any peer-reviewed, serious scientific literature cited that indicates the gender/sex distinction is ideological, or pseudo-scientific.

 

[Croo67]

My mom always brings up a story of how, at age 2, I kept saying ‘mom, is that a man?’ whilst she was being served by a transsexual in a store.

Proud that, even as a toddler, I was less retarded than half the morons in this thread.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

You can question all you want, and I am all ears. But simply saying "this is wrong / not credible / ideology" without pointing to anything specific is not very satisfactory. I have spent a while here outlining the basic distinction. You can disagree, but you have provided absolutely nothing except disagreement.

i did point to specifics.

- study is basically a group of people agreeing on the meaning of words with no real science behind it
- all these "gender" studies contain non-scientific factors like self-identification.

it's actually YOU who have provided nothing except quoting "studies" while not being able to synthesize their meaning or defend them against attacks like i did - point to gender studies that don't have self-identification as a factor.

 

[Seano]

Exactly. There's never a time in my day, ever, where I think about how others live their life and get mad.

Your post history says otherwise.

 

[krelianx]

i did point to specifics.

- study is basically a group of people agreeing on the meaning of words with no real science behind it
- all these "gender" studies contain non-scientific factors like self-identification.

it's actually YOU who have provided nothing except quoting "studies" while not being able to synthesize their meaning or defend them against attacks like i did - point to gender studies that don't have self-identification as a factor.

Uh? The research which is backing these studies include morphological, neurophysiological, psychological, genetic, and many other factors. You are talking as if a bunch of people came together to agree to something without having done anything.

No.

These are groups of researchers and organizations. What is your take on the findings of fMRI and DTI data that show that transgender individuals have a neurophysiology that aligns more to gender than sex? Which is not to deny biological difference. Kreukels Guillamon found that white matter microstructure in transgender individuals falls between cisgender male and female reference points. Zhou showed that transgender women (AMAB, assigned male at birth) have a BSTc volume similar to cisgender women rather than men.

This is published in Nature, the most reputable source of scientific publication in the world,

A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality - Nature

TRANSSEXUALS have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The possible psycho-genie or biological aetiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years1,2. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus...

www.nature.com

Here is the other study.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49718499_The_microstructure_of_white_matter_in_male_to_female_transsexuals_before_cross-sex_hormonal_treatment_A_DTI_study?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Please, feel free to dispute any of these findings.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

What is your take on the findings of fMRI and DTI data that show that transgender individuals have a neurophysiology that aligns more to gender than sex?

This is it. this is the hole that sinks the whole ship.
There's no scientific measurements to what "gender" is.
There's literally NOTHING that pinpoints to it exactly. you ask 100 people you get 100 answers. That's as unscientific as it gets.

if you say it's biological, then it's about hormones meaning sex, which demolishes the argument of difference between gender and sex and the "transsexuals with different brains" argument just means they're developmental anomalies from the immutable sexual binary. not to mention that if the "science" settles on this argument, it gives a method to test all the ones that claim to be trans, and the vast majority will probably turn out not having any anomaly at all and are just sociopathic narcissists. you think the tranny brigades want that? yeah, no. so even this argument is basically one in favor of sex and gender being the same thing, since it's biologically marked.

if you say it's a social construct, it means there's no biological correlation therefore you can't bring biological "proof" for a "social construct", which demolishes the argument of it being a scientific issue.

Sorry mate. theory is so weak it can be destroyed on a mongolian carpet washing forum such as this.

 

[krelianx]

This is it. this is the hole that sinks the whole ship.
There's no scientific measurements to what "gender" is.
There's literally NOTHING that pinpoints to it exactly. you ask 100 people you get 100 answers. That's as unscientific as it gets.

if you say it's biological, then it's about hormones meaning sex, which demolishes the argument of difference between gender and sex and the "transsexuals with different brains" argument just means they're developmental anomalies from the immutable sexual binary. not to mention that if the "science" settles on this argument, it gives a method to test all the ones that claim to be trans, and the vast majority will probably turn out not having any anomaly at all and are just sociopathic narcissists. you think the tranny brigades want that? yeah, no. so even this argument is basically one in favor of sex and gender being the same thing, since it's biologically marked.

if you say it's a social construct, it means there's no biological correlation therefore you can't bring biological "proof" for a "social construct", which demolishes the argument of it being a scientific issue.

Sorry mate. theory is so weak it can be destroyed on a mongolian carpet washing forum such as this.

You are confusing things that can be deductively proved with inductive evidence, which is the basis of the majority of empirical science. Read about Hume's problem.

Saying there are no "scientific measurements" of what gender is does not even make sense. There are measurements, correlations, some of which I already cited, but which you are not addressing at all.

Saying sex is biological does not mean "hormones meaning sex", and I have no idea what you mean by saying this demolishes any argument. You are not even articulating coherent sentences. To say something is an anomaly means it is a statistical improbability, that is, not normal.

People who advocated the heliocentric view of the world were an anomaly at some point. That doesn't mean they were right. If a group of people are anomalous it doesn't mean they are defective, just different.

Nobody has ever claimed there is no correlation between sex and gender. In fact, I said above the very opposite.

I think you need to stop and read, and not try to argue about what you don't know about.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Saying there are no "scientific measurements" of what gender is does not even make sense. There are measurements, correlations, some of which I already cited, but which you are not addressing at all.

there aren't any coherent scientific measurements of "gender" as in being different from sex. ZERO. if there were you'd be posting them. a bunch of people getting together and deciding on an issue while using "self-identification" as a deciding factor is NOT a scientific grouping at all, it's just ideology.
and as i said, if you're one that believes that "gender is a social construct" it means you can't bring in biological arguments for it, because it would contradict the very "social construct" part of the argument. If you think it's a biological aspect, there's ZERO proof that it's different in any way from sex.

Saying sex is biological does not mean "hormones meaning sex", and I have no idea what you mean by saying this demolishes any argument. You are not even articulating coherent sentences. To say something is an anomaly means it is a statistical improbability, that is, not normal.

it certainly does demolish the argument of it being different from sex if it's just biological measurements. especially since there's no biological measurements of "gender" that are distinct from sex. NONE.

if you think there are biological measurements of gender that are distinct from sex i'd like to see them. All that exists is discourse about developmental anomalies that are within the "sex" realm anyway, all of which are catalogued neatly.

I know you'll rush to try to find some "studies", but as long as it's not a study that EXPLICITY offers proof of biological measurements for "gender" that are developmentally distinct from sexual development, it's just horseshit.

People who advocated the heliocentric view of the world were an anomaly at some point.

this is the core of the issue- you don't appear to be able to comprehend the difference between provable fact and opinion. people that have different opinions are not a new biological category. can't believe you came up with this analogy.

That doesn't mean they were right. If a group of people are anomalous it doesn't mean they are defective, just different.

anomaly does not create a separate genus. it's the same genus, but with anomalies. people with three hands aren't a different "gender". they're just anomalies.

Nobody has ever claimed there is no correlation between sex and gender. In fact, I said above the very opposite.

It's worse than that. you're arguing for something that isn't even scientifically pinpointed.
you're literally quoting things that you can't explain or argue for with your own words besides "look here, some studies!!"

 

[The_Renaissance]

I love that this shit is burning. Watch how many of these fetishists and freaks suddenly return to their 'original' gender once the privileges fully stop.