DIRE question

[marshwiggle]

I do have serious worries that other parts of the academia will adopt crap as humanities and some parts of "social science" while asserting loudly that everyone else should join them.  Certain higher education institutions are at risk of undermining themselves as credible knowledge centers in various subjects

Could you give us a specific example of what you are talking about?

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying there, Polly.

How about this? (Start at about 1:15.)

"everything we know about gender"??? What we know from SCIENCE is that about 99% of the population associate their gender with their biological sex.  People criticize far right climate deniers for being anti-science, but all kinds of anti-science from the left is accepted uncritically and treated as established fact.

An activist with the politically correct agenda but wrong science will get more acceptance than someone with the evidentially established science but the politically incorrect agenda every time.

[Wahoo Redux]

I do have serious worries that other parts of the academia will adopt crap as humanities and some parts of "social science" while asserting loudly that everyone else should join them.  Certain higher education institutions are at risk of undermining themselves as credible knowledge centers in various subjects

Could you give us a specific example of what you are talking about?

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying there, Polly.

How about this? (Start at about 1:15.)

"everything we know about gender"??? What we know from SCIENCE is that about 99% of the population associate their gender with their biological sex.  People criticize far right climate deniers for being anti-science, but all kinds of anti-science from the left is accepted uncritically and treated as established fact.

An activist with the politically correct agenda but wrong science will get more acceptance than someone with the evidentially established science but the politically incorrect agenda every time.

So...transgender people don't exist because "science" says they don't?

Your video is not available in America.  And apparently your evidence is The Daily Show?

Oh Marshy...maybe there is a reason some of us dismiss you right-wing thinkers.

[Parasaurolophus]

I see that I am being schooled by my logical-fallacy superiors.  I submit to your instruction, wise ones.

That'll be $600! ;)

I do have serious worries that other parts of the academia will adopt crap as humanities and some parts of "social science" while asserting loudly that everyone else should join them.  Certain higher education institutions are at risk of undermining themselves as credible knowledge centers in various subjects

Could you give us a specific example of what you are talking about?

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying there, Polly.

How about this? (Start at about 1:15.)

That's not really an example of the requested kind. It's an example of a comedian (not an academic) talking about a social phenomenon.

"everything we know about gender"??? What we know from SCIENCE is that about 99% of the population associate their gender with their biological sex.

Even if that's true, you still have no idea whether the creature in utero is part of the 99% or the 1%. What you're announcing to the world with your party is the creature's biological sex, and the way you plan to socialize it.

Quite apart from all that, the whole practice of throwing such parties is imbecilic. (Or... umbilicilic?)

An activist with the politically correct agenda but wrong science will get more acceptance than someone with the evidentially established science but the politically incorrect agenda every time.

Dunno about that, but I can tell you I'd rather be right on both counts.

But I'd also be careful about lobbing that kind of brick. The glass around these parts is especially brittle.

[Wahoo Redux]

That's not really an example of the requested kind. It's an example of a comedian (not an academic) talking about a social phenomenon.

"everything we know about gender"??? What we know from SCIENCE is that about 99% of the population associate their gender with their biological sex.

Even if that's true, you still have no idea whether the creature in utero is part of the 99% or the 1%. What you're announcing to the world with your party is the creature's biological sex, and the way you plan to socialize it.

Quite apart from all that, the whole practice of throwing such parties is imbecilic. (Or... umbilicilic?)

An activist with the politically correct agenda but wrong science will get more acceptance than someone with the evidentially established science but the politically incorrect agenda every time.

Dunno about that, but I can tell you I'd rather be right on both counts.

But I'd also be careful about lobbing that kind of brick. The glass around these parts is especially brittle.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

[marshwiggle]

That's not really an example of the requested kind. It's an example of a comedian (not an academic) talking about a social phenomenon.

"everything we know about gender"??? What we know from SCIENCE is that about 99% of the population associate their gender with their biological sex.

Even if that's true, you still have no idea whether the creature in utero is part of the 99% or the 1%. What you're announcing to the world with your party is the creature's biological sex, and the way you plan to socialize it.

Quite apart from all that, the whole practice of throwing such parties is imbecilic. (Or... umbilicilic?)

An activist with the politically correct agenda but wrong science will get more acceptance than someone with the evidentially established science but the politically incorrect agenda every time.

Dunno about that, but I can tell you I'd rather be right on both counts.

But I'd also be careful about lobbing that kind of brick. The glass around these parts is especially brittle.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

Polly, I think Wahoo just gave you the example he was asking for.

[writingprof]

I see that I am being schooled by my logical-fallacy superiors.  I submit to your instruction, wise ones.

That'll be $600! ;)

I don't feel like I should have to pay full tuition for online-only instruction.

[Parasaurolophus]

I see that I am being schooled by my logical-fallacy superiors.  I submit to your instruction, wise ones.

That'll be $600! ;)

I don't feel like I should have to pay full tuition for online-only instruction.

I gave you half the international price. But I'll settle for half that again.

[Wahoo Redux]

That's not really an example of the requested kind. It's an example of a comedian (not an academic) talking about a social phenomenon.

"everything we know about gender"??? What we know from SCIENCE is that about 99% of the population associate their gender with their biological sex.

Even if that's true, you still have no idea whether the creature in utero is part of the 99% or the 1%. What you're announcing to the world with your party is the creature's biological sex, and the way you plan to socialize it.

Quite apart from all that, the whole practice of throwing such parties is imbecilic. (Or... umbilicilic?)

An activist with the politically correct agenda but wrong science will get more acceptance than someone with the evidentially established science but the politically incorrect agenda every time.

Dunno about that, but I can tell you I'd rather be right on both counts.

But I'd also be careful about lobbing that kind of brick. The glass around these parts is especially brittle.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

Polly, I think Wahoo just gave you the example he was asking for.

Hyperlinked to a dozen articles by actual scientists.  PNAS, Frontiers in Neuroscience, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, Nature (I think I've heard of them) etc.

Ever been published in those, Marshy?

Tough when actual scientists shatter your glass houses of bigotry.

[Puget]

That's not really an example of the requested kind. It's an example of a comedian (not an academic) talking about a social phenomenon.

"everything we know about gender"??? What we know from SCIENCE is that about 99% of the population associate their gender with their biological sex.

Even if that's true, you still have no idea whether the creature in utero is part of the 99% or the 1%. What you're announcing to the world with your party is the creature's biological sex, and the way you plan to socialize it.

Quite apart from all that, the whole practice of throwing such parties is imbecilic. (Or... umbilicilic?)

An activist with the politically correct agenda but wrong science will get more acceptance than someone with the evidentially established science but the politically incorrect agenda every time.

Dunno about that, but I can tell you I'd rather be right on both counts.

But I'd also be careful about lobbing that kind of brick. The glass around these parts is especially brittle.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

Polly, I think Wahoo just gave you the example he was asking for.

Hyperlinked to a dozen articles by actual scientists.  PNAS, Frontiers in Neuroscience, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, Nature (I think I've heard of them) etc.

Ever been published in those, Marshy?

Tough when actual scientists shatter your glass houses of bigotry.

Or if you'd rather get your science education in podcast form, try this: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/projects/radiolab-presents-gonads
Spoiler: If you think biological sex (or even chromosomal sex) is simple and binary, you are in for a big surprise!

[marshwiggle]

"everything we know about gender"??? What we know from SCIENCE is that about 99% of the population associate their gender with their biological sex.

Hyperlinked to a dozen articles by actual scientists.  PNAS, Frontiers in Neuroscience, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, Nature (I think I've heard of them) etc.

Ever been published in those, Marshy?

Tough when actual scientists shatter your glass houses of bigotry.

I was waiting to see if anyone else was going to weigh in, in case I was just flogging a dead horse. But anyway...

Child development has countless dimensions. When a child is born, parents start socializing the child in all of these dimensions, according to established patterns. Specifically,

• Parents socialize their children to have regular sleep patterns, even though some children may have medical and/or neurological issues which will prevent them falling within typical patterns.
• Parents socialize their children to eat nutritious food of the parents' choosing, even though some children may have food sensitivities or allergies which will prevent them falling within typical patterns.
• Parents socialize their children to walk, talk, etc. even though some children may have medical and/or neurological issues which will prevent them falling within typical patterns.
• Parents socialize their children to use the toilet even though some children may have medical and/or neurological issues which will prevent them falling within typical patterns.
• Parents socialize their children to not hit other people even though some children may have developmental and/or neurological issues which will prevent them falling within typical patterns.

This list could go on for pages. It's possible that most children don't fit the typical pattern on at least one issue. However, it would be criminal neglect for parents to simply hold off on any/all of these until the child "chooses" (or even "displays") some sort of preference. To do so would be basically to produce feral children.

In fact, for many of these issues, it's only by moving forward on the assumption that the child will fit typical parameters that the accumulation of evidence over time leads to the conclusion that the child is different. In those cases, that is the time to address those issues.

On the issue of gender, in addition to these points, the reality is that in our modern western society gender makes a smaller difference between people than it does in most other places, and that it has all through history. Since it doesn't include sexual orientation, it has very few tangible, definitive characteristics.

So identifying whether a child is a boy or a girl at birth is going to have no negative consequences in the vast number of cases, and in the very few children who develop gender dysphoria, it will be most appropriately addressed (like all of the issues above) at that time.

[Wahoo Redux]

What in tarnation are you  talkin' about, son?

[marshwiggle]

What in tarnation are you  talkin' about, son?

The Trevor Noah piece was all about "waiting until the child can choose their gender".

[Wahoo Redux]

Per   fect                        ly

                       P     oint   
                                   less,

Marsh
             mallow.

And a little crazy.

[writingprof]

What in tarnation are you  talkin' about, son?

Per   fect                        ly

                       P     oint   
                                   less,

Marsh
             mallow.

And a little crazy.

Marshwiggle, both of these posts are insincere and obnoxious.  Whether or not one agrees with your argument, it makes perfect sense.

[Wahoo Redux]

What in tarnation are you  talkin' about, son?

Per   fect                        ly

                       P     oint   
                                   less,

Marsh
             mallow.

And a little crazy.

Marshwiggle, both of these posts are insincere and obnoxious.  Whether or not one agrees with your argument, it makes perfect sense.

I am quite sincere.