3 ms·
> science is pretty clear that lgbtq+ people are valid Um. That is not a testable phrasing, so I would be immensely surprised if "science" actually said that.
by concordDance 6y ago
> science is pretty clear that lgbtq+ people are valid
Um.
That is not a testable phrasing, so I would be immensely surprised if "science" actually said that.
Pretty much all LGBTQ stuff is a question of ethics/morals not facts, so science has nothing to say om the matter. It could turn out that being gay is triggered by a pathogen that would still have no bearing on whether gay marriage should be allowed.
- Pfhreak 6y agoIt's shorthand because we're on an internet forum. I'm trying to convey that science generally agrees with lgbtq advocacy - sex is not just male or female, gender is a separate concept than sex and is also not just buckets, gay relationships are common and normal throughout many animal species including our own, being gay or trans isn't a mental illness, etc.
- concordDance 6y agoAh, I see. That said, the political interpretation of the science depends a lot on what questions you ask and what facts you pick. It would be pretty east to portray science as being anti-gay or anti-trans just by asking different questions. E.g. you could ask about the proportion of exclusively homosexual animals or looks at homosexuality incidence rates in different environments. For trans you could do comparisons of prevalence of various personality traits that have differing frequencies by gender. Reality doesn't normally wholely favour a particular political party, there's normally some facts you can spin in for a particular party.