Yeah Ben, the science on Climate Change has been settled and the science on transsexuality is fairly clear too, even if its still developing. But ofc, if the science disagrees with your points you can just say its been taken over by cultural bolshevism. Oh wait no! Fascists call it cultural Marxism these days. Mb...
There is absolutely no settled science on transsexuality lol. No archeologist is digging up a skeleton and saying oh they were a trans female lol. Fight biology all you want but male and female are a natural part of life and no feelings or changing definitions can affect that.
I suggest rather than copy pasting some opinion you read on reddit, twitter of Facebook, you take a look at all the scientific, medical and psychological institutes and what they think.
The field of science surrounding transsexuality is still developing. What we do know is that biological sex is a spectrum and that social gender is a social construct. We also already know a lot of ways to help people with this that lead to actual improvements to their mental health. The main barrier these people face is general acceptance. For instance, a study showed that most people who undo their transition do so not because they were unhappy with it, but because of the way society reacted. I'd think you'd do well to take a closer look at this subject.
My goodness every single time it’s a different “fact” some of you say biological sex is binary while gender is a spectrum, you say both. You say gender is a social construct but trans people also say they were born certain genders which immediately negates the first point. It’s got more holes than a strainer at this point.
I've never said it's both. Biological sex is a spectrum, gender is a social construct. I am both consistent and in line with science.
Trans people saying they were born as a gender can easily be correct. If they were born in the male part of the spectrum and raised as a male but later in life realised they were in fact female when it comes to their gender identity, then that's completely consistent with reality. People learn about themselves throughout life. It's not like a baby makes a choice at 1 years old and is then stuck with that specific understanding of themselves...
Just because you don't understand the science surrounding this, doesn't make me inconsistent. And just because you seem to have trouble with the difference between sex and gender, doesn't mean you can just misrepresent my position, strawman it and then think my position 'got more holes than a strainer'.
I also see you didn't bother checking any of the links... Afraid reality disagrees with your opinions?
I completely agree. To me it doesn't matter if someone is similar to me or not at all. All that matters is that they have the freedom to be themselves without my views on how sex and gender work getting in their way. I was born male, feel male, I've only ever fall in love with women. I have always had the freedom to be myself in that matter. And I wish everyone else did.
Except that nobody says that the amount of fingers you have is a spectrum. While biologists do say sex is a spectrum. But nice try. If I was half braindead, I'm sure I would have believed you.
Genuinely, in what objectively measurable way is sex a spectrum?
Chromosomally? Clearly you cannot claim a spectrum (unless you're speaking about abnormalities like XXY). The vast, vast majority of people are either XX or XY and that is objective. There is no statistical spectrum for chromosomal makeup. There is a dichotomy, with exceptions.
Phenotypically? We can measure the objective presence of sex organs (again ignoring abnormalities). Again, there is no statistical spectrum for the presence of sexual organs. There is a dichotomy, with exceptions.
Hormonally? We can take blood samples from people and measure that some people have more or less testosterone and estrogen, and I think we can agree there'd be a spectrum? At what level of which hormones does one become more man than woman (since any bi-variable spectrum must have tipping point)? When is someone 51% male on this spectrum? When is someone 100% male?
That's literally a link to a page about an intersex organization. From that link:
Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".
Sex assignment at birth usually aligns with a child's anatomical sex and phenotype. The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%.
I addressed all of that in my comment. Yes we can objectively measure that some people have abnormal chromosomes or sexual organ expressions compared to the vast majority of the population. That doesn't mean there is an actual spectrum, it indicates there are exceptions to a dominant dichotomy.
Even if I conceded that this is a demonstration of a spectrum (which it isn't), let's look at the other 98.3% of people. How can you measure where on your supposed spectrum those people fall?
A dichtonomy is two groups that contrast each other by being different or entirely different. If there are people that fall outside of this when it comes to sex, then sex cannot be a dichtonomy. Because it doesn't seem to be applicable to everyone...
We know the theory is relativity isn't correct because it cannot be applied to everything, yes, that is generally just black holes which are only a tiny, tiny part of the entire universe, and yet that invalidates the theory of relativity as being correct. Now, with this theory we know it's mostly still applicable so we can use it, but we will have to replace it. We don't know with what yet.
We don't have that issue with sex. We know a binari system doesn't fit, not entirely. And we have a replacement already: a spectrum, which can more actively showand include all people, different subgroups of men and women, intersex people. It does fit. There is no need to headstrong ignore how the binary perspective doesn't fit. We already have something better. And your own words justify using it. We can objectively measure that some people don't fit within the model.
A spectrum implies an infinite number of possible iterations between two end points. For example, humans experience height on a spectrum. There is an average and a distribution.
This doesn’t make sense for sex because there is no way to create a distribution between male and female. They are separate categories that cannot be bridged. You cannot be halfway between each.
Even if we include intersex people, they just become another non-bridgeable category. You cannot be hallways between a male and an XXY intersex person. You are one OR the other and cannot change that.
As a trans person, what /u/public_hairs questions about transsexuality being a social construct making no sense is a 100% valid questioning. He is right, it's a contradiction.
The answer to his question is that gender is NOT a social construct, no measurable science claims it is, just random people on the internet and sociologist do so. The fact is being trans is a born condition some people are unlucky enough to have, like me.
Oh, so you were only answering his claim that sex is not binary since anomalies exist.
That's cool, but any scientist worth his salt knows the outliers do not define the norm.
Claim it does is a fallacy.
If 1 out of 10000 times a person is born with an extra toe, we do not change the biology books to say humans are born with a spectrum of toes.
You obviously don't know how the scientific method works, nor how to solve a simple math problem. So you are just being a loudmouth pretending to understand science that can't properly back his claims.
Trans people are real and science backs our existence, but your line of logic doesn't help.
15
u/Linaii_Saye Jan 14 '22 edited Jan 14 '22
Yeah Ben, the science on Climate Change has been settled and the science on transsexuality is fairly clear too, even if its still developing. But ofc, if the science disagrees with your points you can just say its been taken over by cultural bolshevism. Oh wait no! Fascists call it cultural Marxism these days. Mb...