how accurate is his assertion about science being undermined? if it's true, how harmful is the problem?
>>16798826Dawkins is only worried because he's a midwit who can't into paraconsistent logic.
When was the last time science did a real study on the relation between race and IQ?
>>16798829>paraconsistent logichave you tried regular "logic" yet?
>>16798829maybe inconsistent logic might be the better choice here.
>>16798846filtered
Extremely accurate. Homosexuality was considered a disorder until activists had it removed from DSM. Gender identity disorder was in DSM-III. This isn't science discovering something new, it's science being undermined by social and political agendas.
>>16798826Cancel this transphobic piece of shit
>>16798908Y'all have brain worms.
Dawkins is a modern intellect we should listen to him
>>16798826Trans women are not menThey are deranged faggots
sex: male/femalegender: man/womanorientation: heterosexual/homosexualthere are, of course, more things to add to these categories, but these cover most people. each person is a potentially different combination of these categories.
>>16798900Define disorder in a consistent way that doesn't assume a design in nature and applies to all homosexuals and trans folks and everything else in the early DSM labeled a disorder.
Women = xxMen = xyWhere is my nobel prize?
If you actually read the article, he seems somewhat sympathetic to trannies he believes the insistence on a weird psychosocial phenomenon in biological contexts is counterproductive.You can calm down about the dick chicks now.
>>16798832they have done plenty and retards like you wont shut the fuck up about it
>>16799050May I see them?
>>16799051idk where do you think all the fucking statistics you hear about race and IQ came from, its almost like someone had to collect them
>>16799059I don't know, I remember the person who gathered the statistics and data on race and IQ lost his nobel prize or something
>>16799023Define disorder in such a way that it includes people that think they're another species but not people that think they're another sex.
>>16799095with trannies if they do it right they can kind of just live as the opposite sex and it works out, obviously trying to live as a bear is not nearly healthy to pull off
>>16799107>and it works outexplain that
>>16799108some of them pass and no one is any wiser, others still look like trannies but idk they seem happy enoughmost trannies are relatively normal aside from being trannies
>>16798826Define man. There are plenty of “men” who have a Y chromosome that aren’t men in my books.
>>16799109So they have a higher suicide rate than pretty much any other demographic, are dependent on drugs and things like "dilation" or perpetual surgeries for their entire lives but it's not a disorder because some of them are androgynous enough to fool people?
>>16799116they take the same shit women take for menopause, and if people diden't see them as a walking freakshow I don't think it would be such a miserable existence
>>16799125A 20 yo man taking the same shit as a menopausal woman doesn't seem healthy to me.
>>16799129its just female sex hormone, its probably not ideal but its better than smoking or drinking
>>16799131Got some stats on that?
>>16799133The studies I have found aren't great since being a tranny was a harsh life (especially in the 20th century) so a lot of them died from smoking and aids and whatnot.We know that some intersex individuals with a Y chromosome end up developing females features due to estrogen naturally and they are healthy enough, a tranny on estrogen is essentially the same thing, just artificially produced. I don't think its too bad, but natural hormones are still probably healthier.
>>16799140The worst side effects are from the testosterone blockers, cyperone acetate caused brain tumors so they stopped using it, the current ones can cause high pottassium or are hard on the liver.Any tranny who decides to do it for their entire life should probably get a sex change or orchiectomy since then they just need to take estrogen, which we know is much safer.
>>16799140Basically, once you take away the side effects from testosterone blockers there isn't really a mechanism that should make estrogen kill someone (even if they are a biological man), but they haven't done a big study to confirm this yet.There are a few trannies from the 50's who have lived into their 80's and 90's, so obviously its possible to live a long life on this stuff and that was before the estrogen they used was identical to the shit our bodies already make naturally.
>>16798826Well, unfortunately for him, the real science says that trans women are women, so fuck this old retard boomer.
>>16799048If these kids knew how to read, they would be very angry
>>16798826Linguistic realism is less a scientific position and more of a brainrot that scientists fall into when they move away from data and into philosophy.
>>16799023>Define disorder in a consistent way that doesn't assume a design in nature and applies to all homosexuals and trans folks and everything else in the early DSM labeled a disorder.The issue isn't limited to the early DSM. The latest DSM contains tons of disorders which conflict with their own definition of what constitutes a disorder. That isn't much of a surprise since you should know that the DSM is essentially a pharma insurance list.
>>16798900What matters is if people are more happy or not.
>>16799023>define a 'disorder' in a consistent way>no, you can't base it on the way nature has shaped a species to functionI'm pretty sure at this point the modern "left" is a psyop intended to refute the idea of rational discourse and normalize the idea of political violence as the only viable solution to sociopolitical disputes.
>>16799243>What matters is if people are more happy or not.The slippery slope is true and people are now less happy than ever. The philosophical objections about your ideology have been empirically verified.
>>16799247If I knew surgery or hormones make trannies unhappy I would be in favor of not using them.
>>16799252You already know normalizing LGBTQAPedophilia in the first place has only increased the level of unhappiness in society. You're not only doubling down on that but also pretending troons don't simply kill themselves when they see the difference between their fantasies about having a vagina and the reality of having a pus-filled, shit-smelling, deformed meat hole between their legs.
>>16799023homosexuality impairs reproduction which is effectively suicide for any type of organism.gender identity disorder is associated with a number of other mental problems, most importantly high risk of suicide , and is treated medically, why would you have to treat something that isnt a disorder?
>>16799252I know this entire gender/sex discussion does nothing but unnecessarily confuse 99.9% of children and any teacher caught introducing these elements to their class should be publicly executed.
>>16798826>how accurate is his assertion about science being undermined?>if it's true, how harmful is the problem?Literally telling people to lie about reality.Every trans-woman IS a man pretending to be a woman.
>>16799380
>>16799061Is this true?
>>16799061>I don't know, I remember the person who gathered the statistics and data on race and IQ lost his nobel prize or somethingWatson and he didn't lose his nobel prize but had to sell it. A russian bought it and returned the nobel prize to him.
>>16798900>Homosexuality wasn't considered a disorder until activists had it added to the DSM.
He's right. This whole debate is getting into the nuances between the hard sciences and soft sciences. Soft/social sciences are fluid. They're things open to interpretations and shit like that. So you get hard rifts between left and right. Hard sciences are objective facts like physics, math, etc., irrespective of interpretation. So is gender different from sex? Yeah. But whether or not you give a fuck what someone identifies as is a matter of opinion. Trannies are still men. Fact. But sure there are indeed people out there who have internal feelings of being or identifying as women. Just as we have people who identify as all sorts of things out there in the world. I have no doubt that some people truly and genuinely may feel like the other gender and have mental issues from it. But where the differences come into play is how much I or anyone else has to cater and also play along with your self identification. So while the soft sciences are valid in the sense people do feel this way and there are reasons for it, the people saying we should treat them as X or cater to such things are proposing a political solution and opinion. Not a fact.
>>16799511What makes an objective fact different from any other non-objective fact?
LOL they're (trannies) losing their minds.Richard Dawkins has spoken:— “This ridiculous article (shame on the once-great Scientific American) ignorantly misunderstands the nature of the sex binary. … Sex is not defined by chromosomes, nor by anatomy, nor by psychology or sociology, nor by personal inclination, nor by “assignment at birth”, but by gamete size. It happens to be embryologically DETERMINED by chromosomes in mammals. … But it is universally DEFINED by the binary distinction between sperms and eggs. You may argue about “gender” if you wish (biologists have better things to do) but sex is a true binary, one of rather few in biology.”Article in question: https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
>>16799512Like sex is chromosomal based. We can test those. There is no fluidity there or debate. You have a given set of chromosomes and that's it. Gender is a social construct so it is fluid. We made it up. Social constructs are things people made up. If there is no human around there is no gender to be had. It does not exist independently of its concept. Sex does. A chromosome is a string of proteins and has an existence independent of its concept.
>>16799517But people also made up the tests. If we are permitted to make up testing standards for objective facts, I don't see how they are objective.
>>16799529But I'm not talking about the standards for testing. Like a rock exists independently of whether or not the concept of a rock exists. So a rock can be said to be objective. You can call it anything you want, run whatever tests with any standards you want, but the rock exists. It's there and has an existence regardless of how we view it. Social concepts don't. Like say kindness. That's a social construct. There isn't a pound of kindness sitting around. I can't pick it up or hold it or do anything to it. It is purely a conceptual/mental invention and has no independent existence. It does not exist outside of our heads. It's about whether or not X thing exists independently aside from its concept or is entirely just a concept without some independent existence.I don't need to believe in the rock to get hit by one. It has some independent nature outside of my mind. If it's a social construct and I refuse to believe in it then what existence does it have? None really. Ya can't throw a piece of gender at someone and hit them with it. You could get some proteins and chromosomes and do that if you wanted.
>>16799542So existence is the criteria for an objective fact? Do trannys exist?
>>16799546Yeah trannies exist. But social sciences deal with social concepts. So it deals with an experience, a qualia. An experience is fluid and open to subjective interpretations. Taste is a qualia and I may enjoy the taste of one food and you may find it tastes like shit. Because taste deals with a subjective experience. There is no objective "this food is good because it tastes good to me". That's my opinion but how good or bad the taste is isn't some objective fact about reality itself. It's only a statement regarding my subjective experience with that taste. What would be objective is what gives it the taste. Like citrus. We can examine why a citrus fruit has the taste it does. We can look at the acids and its composition and examine it to see what it is. But our experience and opinion regarding how that tastes to us is entirely arbitrary and subjective. The hard science is the objective truth about the fruit. The soft sciences deal with the experiences or meaning and qualia of our interactions with said objective thing.
>>16799516that's what happens when you deify people"""trust the experts"""
>>16798826>there are two genders, male and female>man is more than just biologythese are two fundamental conceptseven an 80IQ tard gets themfuck, even a literal Neanderthal 200K years ago would get ityet these "people" have turned them into a debate in the year 2025it's hilarious
>>16799498>Mr Watson told the Financial Times he had become an “unperson” after he “was outed as believing in IQ” in 2007. “No one really wants to admit I exist,” he said. Very scientific. Modern academia is definitely not a joke
>>16799023Disorder is when normies think its icky and grossThe more icky and gross it is the more disordered it is
>>16799095>Define disorder in such a way that it includes people that think they're another species but not people that think they're another sexLast I checked, thinking you're another species isn't in the DSM, so why would I?
>>16799635It's just another type of dysphoria.
>>16799023>Define disorder>except not in the way I want you to define itquintessential tranny mindset
>>16799686If we want to define it in the same way, that shouldn't be an issue.So to be clear, the way you want to define it either involves the early DSM being inconsistent, which negates your point, or assuming intelligent design, which negates your point.>>16799644Thinking you're another species isn't considered a dysphoria. You can't just spout your delusions and have them be true.
>>16799712>You can't just spout your delusions and have them be true.But you can as long as your delusion is that you're a different gender.
>>16799719>it doesn't know what gender isShame
>>16799731You mean the nu-definition that refers to it as basically a social stereotype? Even if we go by that, most trannies don't fulfill the societal role of the gender they identify with.
The human body usually develops one of two ways, male or female. Sometimes that process doesn’t go to spec and the body develops in a weird way. Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, that happens mostly in the brain.Depending on how this manifests, it may cause cross-sex sexuality or cross-sex proprioception. That’s how you get fruity niggas.In other words, it all has to do with epigenetics and the development of the brain in the womb. This explains things like the fraternal birth order effect, twin studies, measured average brain differences, and other markers for natal development.
>>16799712>If we want to define it in the same way, that shouldn't be an issue.the bottom line is this: trannies are mentally ill by definition and you will never be a woman simple as
>>16799750>Sometimes that process doesn’t go to spec and the body develops in a weird way.you're just repeating what some tranny scientist has hypothesizedtrannies and fags become that because of trauma and/or nutrient deficiencies"mental" problems are functionally no different than physical problems since your brain is physical
>>16799733>You mean the nu-definitionGender in reference to human conditions was literally coined to refer to the fucking "nu-definition" (which by this point is older than fucking you are). The old definition was linguistics bullshit like el vs la.There was no fucking point where gender just meant sex. Please wake up from your delusions.>most trannies don't fulfill the societal role of the gender they identify with.Also you don't know what gender is.>>16799765>trannies are mentally ill by definitionAnd yet you can't provide that definition.Sure are lot of delusional people in this thread.
>>16799770>Gender in reference to human conditions was literally coined to refer to the fucking "nu-definition"No, it wasn't. Nobody separated it from sex prior to John Money.>Also you don't know what gender is.Cope and not an argument.
>>16799770>And yet you can't provide that definition.im not your dictionary, go and read it if you're unsure what mental illness isnobody credible is even arguing this, OBVIOUSLY it's a mental illness to think you're born into the wrong genderyou're either a tranny or a tranny apologist, a distinction without a difference
>i identify as a womandumb people are dumb, they have dumb thoughts and do dumb things because their brains don't work good. thats why they're wrong if they say they identify as a woman, how could they possibly know? they've never been a woman and never will be, they're the last people who could positively identify themselves as female, but they're too dumb to realize that because low iq people lack self awareness
>>16799770https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender>gender(n.)>c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.>The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (see D). Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. Jespersen ("Philosophy of Grammar," 1924) defines grammatical gender by reference to the Indo-European distinction of masculine, feminine, neuter, "whether the division be based on the natural division into two sexes, or on that between animate and inanimate, or on something else.">The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.loony troon "feminist" """science""" definitions of words need to be excised from science and society. all leftoid bolshevik trash must be burned in a bonfire the likes the world has never seen.
the reason the animal metaphore doesn't work imo is because in all animals sex is kind of an ad-hoc mechanism used for reproduction, theoretically a perfectly sexless human could exist if the stars aligned and they were mutated in the correct way. If hormones work properly, its not infeasible for a man to end up looking like his mom, and intersex people have fucked up sex determination since the dawn of time without doctors doing anythingObviously, we can't change genetics so there is nothing in you that could help you achieve dog-hood.
>>16799819also there isn't really a documented history of otherwise healthy individuals feeling like dogs like there is with GD... so there isn't really a practical need for that.
>>16799819>>16799820honestly this whole debate is just an excuse to terrorize some people with a condition that as far as anyone can tell you get born with, its no different from beating up on a bunch of cripples or lepers
>>16799822trvke, we need to catch and release niggers 14 times before they stab white women in the throat because they have white skin and the niggers have been so mentally molested with "MUH SLAVERY" bolshevik grievance propaganda that any time they see a White person they hallucinate them saying "nigger"you have saved the west
>>16799824you could have just told me you were fucking insane so I wouldn't believe in your ability to reason
>>16799803>https://www.oed.com/dictionary/gender_n?tl=true>Originally extended from the grammatical useDipshit. Gender as its own concept substituting sex wasn't a thing. It was used more to mean category.
>>16799826its just dey culcha, its just the way they were born and there is nothing we can do about it and we need as many imported into crakkka society as possible :)
>>16799775>Nobody separated it from sex prior to John Money>1945 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.>American Journal of Psychology vol. 58 228This was 2 years before John Money even fucking came to the fucking United States. Shut the fuck up, you lying sack of shit.
>>16799827did you not read the post?>>16799831anyone arguing in favor of the unspeakably evil John (((Money)))'s disgusting theories ought to be completely excised from society at this point. the whole line of thought is a cancer that must be snuffed out with force.
>>16799831I stand corrected. Let me reword it:>nobody prior to a century ago
>>16799831>>16799833>>16799834The whole "gender vs sex" debate is almost useless.The simple observational truth is such:>The body knows what sex it is by hormones>Normally this is determined by chromosomes>Hormones can be fucked with so the body develops characteristics not aligned with chromosomes, naturally or artificially.>Certain individuals have a strong and incurable averse reaction to their chromosomal sex attributesSo just put 3 and 4 together to see why the medical community is fine with tranny stuff.
>>16799833>say gender being distinct from sex didnt start with john money>yeah well that means you like defend him and stuff so ur badYou're a fucking retard. Saying you're wrong about the usage of a word doesn't mean "therefore you approve of what john money did".
>>16799836I didn't say you approved of that pile of shit thoughieson
>>16799836Notice how this anon didn't actually deny it.
>>16799839Exactly. If you don’t reaffirm your undying loyalty to Israel in every post you are a traitor to the country and should be sent to a forced labor camp.
>>16799852Here is a direct question for you: do you agree with John Money's opinions and methods?
>>16799853Raping children is good actually.10 years hard labor for your insolence
>>16798826Transgenderism is a religious offshoot of Christianity and discussion about it should be banned from /sci/
>>16799858Please god explain your thinking here. I am genuinely so interested.
>>16799873he could, but you wouldn't understand
>>16799853>do you agree with John Money's opinionsNo. Conversion therapy isn't a thing. His opinions were trash by mo dern standards. If you could socialize someone to be the gender and orientation you wanted them to be, everyone would be cishet.>and methods?He was pretty famously a fraud and child abuser. I'm not aware of anyone in modern medicine that agrees with those.
>>16799902>Conversion therapy isn't a thing.In his mind he wasn't converting anybody, he just believed gender is a malleable social construct and anybody can take any identity at any time. You disagree with that?
>>16799908he sort of proved GD, bringing up kids as the wrong gender terrorized them. If someone doesn't like the gender they are living in, that means its likely an innate brain thing which helps validate trannie's "I don't like what I am" argument
>>16799910So transgenderism rates have increased by like 1500% in the last few years cause the "brain things" have increased?
>>16799912i mean, up until now you would have to be insane to be a tranny so most people just sucked it up.Now living as a tranny isn't so bad, so people don't suck it up anymore.
>>16799908>he just believed gender is a malleable social constructActually he didn't. His beliefs about the construction of gender could have applied to someone raised in isolation by robots.>In his mind he wasn't converting anybodyHe pretty explicitly believed learning could shape gender and orientation. Whether you want to split hairs and say babies don't have genders or orientations so it doesn't count, it's still closer to the beliefs underpinning conversion therapy than gender theory. Also, strictly speaking, his beliefs could also be applied to amnesiac, in which case it would just be conversion therapy.
>>16799912>So transgenderism rates have increased by like 1500% in the last few yearsSurely you've heard of the closet?
>>16798826wonder what he thinks of alan turing
>>16798826>science being underminedI have been saying this for over ten years here none of you were smart enough to pay attention however
>>16799023>Define disorder in a consistent way that doesn't assume a design in nature>doesn't assume a design in naturewhat the hell does that even mean? Is "retardation" no longer a disorder because your feelings dictate nobody can say we aren't *meant* or *supposed" to be mentally retarded? Saying we are /aren't meant to be X implies design and intent. >Define disorder>and applies to all homosexuals and trannysThat's already a loaded question since there's more than one class of disorder. You have no desire to argue in good faith..A non-cognitive mental disorder is holding beliefs or desires that are intrinsically associated with self harm and do not contribute to the collective social good or contribute to gene propagation (ex. desiring to die to save your child or something)trannys and faggots meet that definition in spades and normal people don't. denying it is even more proof it's a mental disorder.
>>16801355>Is "retardation" no longer a disorderNo? And if you can't explain why intellectual disability could be considered a disorder without bringing up design, you might be intellectually disabled.>That's already a loaded question since there's more than one class of disorderI didn't say the definition had to cover everything conceivably considered a disorder in any context. I limited the scope to the fucking DSM since the claim was it was removed from there for an unscientific reason. The APA has a definition of disorder that applies to everything in the DSM. Seems to me if you think they are wrong, you should be able to put forward a definition that includes that shit and being homosexual or trans.Or are you a cunt now backing down by claiming being homosexual or trans is a different class of disorder than what's in the DSM, meaning it not being included is completely justified?Oh, and if you are backing down, I should remind you nobody gives a shit what you think is a disorder.
>>16799048>You can calm down about the dick chicks now.Not until they're finally repudiated socially and by policy
>>16799243>happyThis can’t be measured and is an ephemeral feeling. Their feeling of “happiness” will soon fade and will be replaced with another issue. This solves nothing.
>>16799644Calling it something else doesn’t make it less of a mental disorder.
Trannies have set us back decades and I will never forgive them for this.
>>16801497>>Is "retardation" no longer a disorder>No?ROFL look at the dishonest rat dodge half the questionThe other half was >because your feelings dictate nobody can say we aren't *meant* or *supposed" to be mentally retarded? Are you not supposed to be retarded yes or no?If the answer is "no" then your qualifier about "intelligent design"debunks your entire question:You preemptively set up the premise that any definition that hurts your little troon fee fees can be handwaved as a "invalid" because at any time you can just pigeon hole that definition via making a special pleading fallacy that the definition constitutes "implying intelligent design" because it will always involve the idea we are not "supposed to be X" Therefore any disorder now becomes NOT a disorder because we can't say humans are supposed to be a certain way. LGBT loonies love that!If the answer is "yes" then the qualifier itself is invalid because nature does not dictate we are "supposed" to be anything (although the rest of the question MIGHT still be valid if just the qualifier is thrown out)Hence why I asked what the hell it is supposed to mean. Every interpretation invalidates what you said in some way. >I didn't say the definition had to cover everything conceivably considered a disorder in any context. Of course you communicated that. Disorder means any disorder. You never specified the class of disorder. >I limited the scope to the fucking DSM No, you didn't limit the scope. You just said it must apply to the earlier DSM, that does not mean it is limited to the earlier DSM>Or are you a cunt now backing down I'm a different poster you mentally ill LGBT lunatic (ie child diddler)Your question was loaded and invalid and used verbal trickery intended to deny any definition you don't like based on whatever you feel counts as "intelligent design"Typical intellectual dishonesty from LGBT lunaticsOh and you never refuted my definition kek!!!!
>>16798826>Trans women are, genetically, menan uncontroversial, scientific, statement that all camps agree on>Trans women are menA culture war statement saying that transwomen shouldnt get to call themselves women or get to be called women. Has nothing to do with science
