When two worldviews collide.

[Ana the Ist]

That research was trying to tease out whether genes or hormone exposure were a stronger causative factor. But what that article accepts as a foundation for that, is that there is a "sexual dimorphic brain."

Yes indeed; which is why I have often argued against brain differences as a justification for gender roles.


In some limited ways. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Again....the same activists now suddenly propose that the very idea of biological sexual dimorphism is itself a lie....and sex is a "spectrum".

Almost as if there's literally no difference between the concept of biological sex and gender. You know, despite all the insisting that biological sex was in absolutely no way related to gender. These are just two unrelated concepts that somehow are completely interchangeable all the time.

My favorite phrase of the woke cult is "privilege preserving epistemic pushback". Yes, that's a real phrase....

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/hypa.12354#:~:text=In%20practice%2C%20privilege%2Dpreserving%20epistemic,engaging%20ideas%20that%20threaten%20us.

This is the phrase used to describe anyone who...

1. Is capable of critical thinking.
2. Refuses to accept the woke's moral authority.
3. Has enough maths to understand statistical disparities.
4. Refuses to accept anecdotal evidence as pure truth and isn't baffled by vague abstract terms like "systemic" or "structural".
5. Understands our ability to know anything is contingent upon an objective reality.

Or to use it in a sentence...

Hey, this guy keeps referring to evidence and facts instead of just accepting what I tell him....he's engaging in privilege preserving epistemic pushback.

 

[Paidiske]

Again....the same activists now suddenly propose that the very idea of biological sexual dimorphism is itself a lie....and sex is a "spectrum".

But we are discussing here a very specific piece of clinical research.

 

[Bradskii]

I wonder if we could find anything where people seemed perfectly happy with their transition. Things seemed great and all was well and then later realized it didn't really fix anything. Then they decided to detransition.
Especially when they transitioned as a child and realized they didn't know what they were doing. I wonder if we have any stories like that. Oh wait. We do. Gee maybe we should wait until they are adults before doing that.

But that's not what you want. You want it stopped. Period. And please, don't give us any more bull about 'adults can do what they want.' No more 'oh, wont someone please think of the children!' If it was up to you, as good as the outcome was, as carefull as everyone could have been, as gradual as the change was made, as happy as he is now, as well as it turned out for everyone concerned, you'd want it stopped.

Thankfully, you're not in a position to make those decisions. All you can do is try to persuade people (as if they needed persuading) that research should always continue. And then they can proceed? After the most thorough going, detailed and comprehensive investigations into all aspects of transitioning?

No. You'd still say no. So why anyone would listen to you is something of a mystery.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But we are discussing here a very specific piece of clinical research.

Those two claims are mutually exclusive. If you are sexually dimorphic (which would have to be true for the claims of your specific clinical research to make any sense) then sex isn't "fluid" or "on a spectrum". It's a 2 category trait with the possibility of genetic aberrations.

 

[Bradskii]

Wait they transitioned after they were married?

You've been told enough to put the point across. Anything else is of absolutely no concern to you. I hope that's quite clear.

 

[Paidiske]

Those two claims are mutually exclusive.

Irrelevant, since they're not being made by the same people, for the same ends.

For what it's worth, I understand the point being made by some people that sex is, in fact, a simplified binary categorisation of variation in many traits, and that not everyone fits neatly into the simplified binary. That would, in fact, help make sense of the fact that brain and body development are not always congruent.

That doesn't change the reality that most people fit well enough into one or the other binary category for most purposes, most of the time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes emotions are an important part of morality I think. Getting upset at injustice or cruelty towards others and rejoicing in justice being done or in others getting their fair share. But I think its a qualified emotion like say with rightious anger or compassion rather than feeling sorry for someone.

I don't disagree....I think emotions are tied directly to our moral opinions. This precludes any sort of rational basis for them though. If you feel like a behavior is good and I feel like its bad....we might be able to explain why we feel this way, but we cannot hope to prove our feelings are factually correct and the other's are wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Irrelevant, since they're not being made by the same people, for the same ends.

For what it's worth, I understand the point being made by some people that sex is, in fact, a simplified binary categorisation of variation in many traits, and that not everyone fits neatly into the simplified binary. That would, in fact, help make sense of the fact that brain and body development are not always congruent.

That doesn't change the reality that most people fit well enough into one or the other binary category for most purposes, most of the time.

One of the problems of the woke cult is the rejection of logic, rational consistency, or even just a clear basis for truth claims.

That's why I have no problem with you using the evidence of a sexually dimorphic brain as evidence of a real condition known as transgenderism.

If you cite that evidence though....then you'll have to disagree with all claims of the trans activists regarding biological sex being fluid or on some sort of spectrum. You'll essentially be with the "terfs" on that issue....and from the standpoint of trans activists, that makes you a terf/transphobic by default.

The only definition of transphobic is "someone who disagrees withthe trans community on any gender/sex/trans related issue". That's a pretty dumb definition but it's the only one that fits every example of the word's usage.

That's the result of claiming some sort of moral high ground on an endless number of demands and shifting beliefs.

 

[Paidiske]

If you cite that evidence though....then you'll have to disagree with all claims of the trans activists regarding biological sex being fluid or on some sort of spectrum.

I understand the point they're making about a spectrum, (after all, I've read Judith Butler, much as her work was intellectually challenging) but I think for most people most of the time, it's not really an issue.

You'll essentially be with the "terfs" on that issue....and from the standpoint of trans activists, that makes you a terf/transphobic by default.

You say this as if what an activist on any particular issue thinks of me, is a relevant factor to what position I might take. I assure you I am not so flighty (nor would I have chosen to be ordained, if I were!)

 

[Whyayeman]

This came as a surprise this morning. I had no idea that the effort to attack the very notion of LGBT+ was actually financed with very large sums of money raised for that purpose by the so called (without irony) Alliance Defending Freedom.

Revealed: Christian legal non-profit funds US anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion organizations

Alliance Defending Freedom distributes hundreds of thousands of dollars to fringe groups attacking trans, gay and abortion rights

www.theguardian.com

 

[Mountainmike]

The search I did was "Rwanda genocide religion".

But by all means, assume that I am intentionally biasing myself because you don't like what I find.

You are missing the point that the shroud shows an image that can only be formed if the shroud was draped over the top of the head, and yet the image of the top of the head not only doesn't exist, but there is not enough space for it to exist between the images of the front of the head and the back.

If you want me to accept the shroud as genuine, then go ahead and explain to me how my position here is wrong.

Will you purchase this book for me? I will be happy to provide a postal address for you to deliver it to. But don't expect me to fork out money for YOUR homework. Of course, you could find a source online that shows religion played no part in it. Surely such sources exist, right?

And would you care to support your implication that a lack of religion equates to a lack of moral code? Because I disagree with that completely.

But there of course is the problem.
You inserted "religion" - so searching for those to blame it on , regardless of justification. If you look you will find books that wrongly blaming everything on jews. The existence of anti religious - or anti semitic- books and reports willing to twist the world into that frame, does not justify their cause.

Now instead search "cause of rwanda genocide" and you will find the overwhelming consensus on race hate, as numerous websites demonstrate a consensus. You clearly have not read the basics.
Neighbours killed neighbours, in a race hate genocide, not a dictator or army, the outcome was a product of no moral code.

So it is the issue on "world views" . How can an atheist have a moral code? There is none implicit in evolution.

just as you search "shroud fake" you inserted the answer you had already determined in absentia of evidnce.
And you saw where that leads:
Your pseudoscientific doll experiment flew in the face of actual science> Real scientists - in this case Jackson et al, had already done advanced dimensional studies to the point of mannikins and shroud dimensional replicas that actually fit. You can see it in arizona or on the right web site. And the dimensional study was BEFORE you did your doll experiment.

You would know so if you read even the first reports on the shroud from STURP.
So "defeating your illogic" comprehensively.

But you seem determined to comment on many issues without even understanding the basics
Perhaps you would like to tell those pseudoscientific so called shroud sceptics who led you down that rabbit hole, that they are neither critical thinkers, logical nor informed nor scientist. Now you see they were wrong!

It is up to you Kylie. You are responsible for your own education. But please stop commenting on things you know nothing about, if you are unwilling to research them first, except through the lens ofpredetermined conclusion.
Much of the materialist world view is based on faith not science.

At least christian scientists make the distinction of what they believe from faith and what they know from science.
Atheists cannot be objective. By definition - They cannot have an open mind. Agnostics can of course.

 

[Bradskii]

At least christian scientists make the distinction of what they believe from faith and what they know from science.
Atheists cannot be objective. By definition - They cannot have an open mind. Agnostics can of course.

I'm afraid that all you have done there is show your lack of understanding of what science actually is (or actually isn't, to be more preceise). And a confusion as to what the difference is between atheism and agnosticism.

Here's a heads up which no doubt will confuse you further. I am both an atheist and an agnostic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I understand the point they're making about a spectrum, (after all, I've read Judith Butler, much as her work was intellectually challenging) but I think for most people most of the time, it's not really an issue.

Ok...I can't say I've read a lot of Judith Butler, but I don't think I'd call what I read intellectually challenging. I found her heavy on theory, light on research, and the theory seemed very biased in favor of legitimizing her personal worldview.

You say this as if what an activist on any particular issue thinks of me, is a relevant factor to what position I might take. I assure you I am not so flighty (nor would I have chosen to be ordained, if I were!)

What I have then...is your assurance that you won't be, in the rather near future, you won't be arguing that sex is a fluid construct or a "spectrum" despite the likelihood of trans activists pushing the idea because of course...biological facts/reality?

Because as of now....I'm not convinced that's even your current position. Reality doesn't change as a matter of majority opinion. You say you understand the point being made....but you don't say you disagree....but rather deflect to say "most people fit neatly into male or female". This isn't exactly a rejection of sex as a spectrum. I've made a consideration for intersex people (who are sterile and unable to reproduce, therefore not a true 3rd sex category) and other genetic anomalies. It's not as if you would suddenly believe someone born with 1 leg or 3 legs meant that "legs are on a spectrum". Genetic abnormalities are a reality and biology readily acknowledges this....even if Judith Butler fails to understand it.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'm afraid that all you have done there is show your lack of understanding of what science actually is (or actually isn't, to be more preceise). And a confusion as to what the difference is between atheism and agnosticism.

Here's a heads up which no doubt will confuse you further. I am both an atheist and an agnostic.

You are not a scientist so your opinion on science is flawed. It is a limited process and limited model , that is all.
You confuse scientist with materialist.

My comment that agnostics “ can have” ( rather than” do have” ) open mind is cleary true, since they do not exclude the possibility of God. But there is an inherent bias in confronting phenomena from an atheist standpoint of “ there is no God” so hindering scientific process In any arena in which it matters. If you insert the word “ I believe “ there is no God,in the other stand point, it is a statement of faith, you are a believer. And if you are such a believer you must discount the evidence of a God or intervention in the universe, so that makes you an agnostic, Atheists refuse to accept the logical consequence of the horns of their self made and self contradicting dilemma.

Here the proof - Take several universities point blank refusing to do dna tests on so called Eucharistic miracles on the basis that “1/ the tests are bound to fail, so pointless, and 2/ it would damage their ability to continue if the tests succeed , because the university was founded in Darwinism - ie founded on atheist materialism - an expression of faith - as stated at several universities in the last few years. It really happened several times - Ask tesoriero , So they are clearly not scientists because of fixed worldview imposed on evidence. . They are believers in materialism. Scientism.

A believer in God can decide either way on phenomena on basis of evidence. So are inherently more open minded as scientists are obliged to be.

I use logic, not atheist wish believe on such as Abiogenesis.
if there is ever any evidence or process or structure I might believe it. But there isn’t.
A difference of world view - I take the view of a scientist .

 

[Ana the Ist]

But that's not what you want. You want it stopped. Period. And please, don't give us any more bull about 'adults can do what they want.' No more 'oh, wont someone please think of the children!' If it was up to you, as good as the outcome was, as carefull as everyone could have been, as gradual as the change was made, as happy as he is now, as well as it turned out for everyone concerned, you'd want it stopped.

Thankfully, you're not in a position to make those decisions. All you can do is try to persuade people (as if they needed persuading) that research should always continue. And then they can proceed? After the most thorough going, detailed and comprehensive investigations into all aspects of transitioning?

No. You'd still say no. So why anyone would listen to you is something of a mystery.

Whenever you have to wildly misrepresent someone's position because it's entirely reasonable....and therefore difficult to argue against....you're no longer engaging in good faith discussion.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm afraid that all you have done there is show your lack of understanding of what science actually is (or actually isn't, to be more preceise). And a confusion as to what the difference is between atheism and agnosticism.

Here's a heads up which no doubt will confuse you further. I am both an atheist and an agnostic.

Sounds like an identity crisis. I hope you get better. Maybe counseling would help.

 

[Whyayeman]

Words, words!

The word 'agnostic' is thrown about carelessly. Christian theologians used it (and still do, I suppose) to suggest that the existence of God could not be proved. So the Agnostics were Christians. I would say that all Christians are agnostics in a sense because they believe in God without any proof (in the logical sense). That is why faith is required - belief without proof.

My atheism is very simple. I have never found any reason to believe in God and therefore arrange my life to accommodate it to the proposition that there isn't one. I, of course, have never seen a proof (in the logical sense) that God exists and do not believe such a proof can be found. In that I am with the Christian Agnostics.

I am thus atheist and an agnostic. No identity crisis here!

 

[BPPLEE]

Words, words!

The word 'agnostic' is thrown about carelessly. Christian theologians used it (and still do, I suppose) to suggest that the existence of God could not be proved. So the Agnostics were Christians. I would say that all Christians are agnostics in a sense because they believe in God without any proof (in the logical sense). That is why faith is required - belief without proof.

My atheism is very simple. I have never found any reason to believe in God and therefore arrange my life to accommodate it to the proposition that there isn't one. I, of course, have never seen a proof (in the logical sense) that God exists and do not believe such a proof can be found. In that I am with the Christian Agnostics.

I am thus atheist and an agnostic. No identity crisis here!

It would be like me saying that I’m a Trinitarian and a Unitarian. I can’t disprove either one so why not be both. But you and @Bradskii know way more about this than I do, and y’all are free to be anything you want to be.

 

[Bradskii]

If you insert the word “ I believe “ there is no God,in the other stand point, it is a statement of faith, you are a believer. And if you are such a believer you must discount the evidence of a God or intervention in the universe, so that makes you an agnostic...

Nope. You got it wrong again. Do you want to to try one more time? Maybe @Whyayeman's post will help.

 

[Bradskii]

Sounds like an identity crisis. I hope you get better. Maybe counseling would help.

It doesn't surprise me that Mike doesn't know the difference. I'm mildly surprised that there are others as well.