3 ms·

I don't have a main. No risk of retaliation. Just a topic I'm informed on and it drives me up the wall to have people claim "reason" and "science" and then igno

I don't have a main. No risk of retaliation. Just a topic I'm informed on and it drives me up the wall to have people claim "reason" and "science" and then ignore the fact that science and reason widely agree with the idea that gender and sex aren't binary.

andrew_ 5y ago
Use of "widely" suggests bias, so I'd recommend being careful with that use. There is definitely a concensus among many scientists of that hypothesis, but it's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't the presence of a significant number of scientists that argue the opposite. Objectivity is incredibly important in science, and it breeds credibility. This topic has social and ideological components, both of which cloud objectivity when speaking of the science. If you believe that science evolves, it's paramount that we treat hypotheses objectively rather than through the lens of absolutism
- bendergender 5y ago
  I'm suggesting it's the majority opinion. Yes, there exist minority opinions as well, but generally we don't consider agreeing with the majority/consensus to be "ignoring the science".
  - andrew_ 5y ago
    That seems qualitative, rather than quantitative. Similar to how we use voter sample polling. Objectively speaking, I believe you'd have a hard time quantifying that assertion. Most people seems to take that position based on the loudest voices and personally held convictions rather than raw numbers. Quantifying the majority would require polling every single scientist that works in the field, which is likely not possible. I continue to consider the arguments of the many camps in that field, as the science is not settled and is constantly changing as we gain understanding of our own genetic makeup.
    - bendergender 5y ago
      Take this diagram, https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png I doubt you'd find much support that it's wrong, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's considered the accepted standard.

andrew_ 5y ago

Use of "widely" suggests bias, so I'd recommend being careful with that use. There is definitely a concensus among many scientists of that hypothesis, but it's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't the presence of a significant number of scientists that argue the opposite. Objectivity is incredibly important in science, and it breeds credibility. This topic has social and ideological components, both of which cloud objectivity when speaking of the science. If you believe that science evolves, it's paramount that we treat hypotheses objectively rather than through the lens of absolutism

bendergender 5y ago
I'm suggesting it's the majority opinion. Yes, there exist minority opinions as well, but generally we don't consider agreeing with the majority/consensus to be "ignoring the science".
- andrew_ 5y ago
  That seems qualitative, rather than quantitative. Similar to how we use voter sample polling. Objectively speaking, I believe you'd have a hard time quantifying that assertion. Most people seems to take that position based on the loudest voices and personally held convictions rather than raw numbers. Quantifying the majority would require polling every single scientist that works in the field, which is likely not possible. I continue to consider the arguments of the many camps in that field, as the science is not settled and is constantly changing as we gain understanding of our own genetic makeup.
  - bendergender 5y ago
    Take this diagram, https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png I doubt you'd find much support that it's wrong, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's considered the accepted standard.