5 ms·

Fifty years from now we'll look back at this time the same way we look back at Lysenkoism. Sad to see science has been so corrupted by the religion of Newchurch

Fifty years from now we'll look back at this time the same way we look back at Lysenkoism. Sad to see science has been so corrupted by the religion of Newchurch [0]. [0] https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch

aaplok 4y ago
We look back at Lysenkoism as a movement that promoted a wrong scientific theory using political means that led to censoring alternative theories and killing or imprisoning scientists. Not only have nobody been jailed or killed for promoting views antagonistic to the view of this presumed "Newchurch", but you are writing your comment under an article about how these "Newchurch" views have been censored after a complaint against them in the name of science. No matter how hard people try to believe it, we don't live in the time of Stalin and Lysenko. I feel it is disrespectful to their victims to claim that our petty frustrations are in any way comparable to their very real suffering.
- hugblx 4y ago
  [dead]
  - aaplok 4y ago
    As unpleasant as these women's experience is, none of them are in jail, and none of them were murdered by the state for holding these views. We're a far cry from the Lysenko era. Especially because none of the parties (on either side) even claims to be doing science. What I see in the articles you linked is a lot of noise on both sides of the ideological line, using twitter first and then traditional media. We live in a noisy time, and this may have deplorable consequences, including (self)-censoring. I don't see a systematic state-led ideological war using systematic jailing and killing.
xist 4y ago
That's ... a pretty inflammatory and dismissive point of view. There's lots of evidence going back to egyptian times supporting the science behind this. Unfortunately most people only see the surface level sound bites thrown out in the media and make up their mind based on that - or what their own religion has pushed forward. I suspect that fifty years from now we will have built on all the existing knowledge (including historical) and have a more refined understanding put together.
- hugblx 4y ago
  Where is the science to support the idea that any male who says he's a woman actually is a woman? As that is the ideology of gender identity that is being so heavily contested today.
  - xist 4y ago
    Gender identity is something that is nuanced and complex. I'm not looking for an argument but I would invite you to think of the opposite: - What is the proof that this person is not what they claim of? (ie, what ideology of yours makes you convinced of this?). This ties into deeply philosophical questions - what makes you "you"? Do you have a conscience? A soul? Is your brain the source of your identity or is your loins? Does your loins control your brain and thus your existence? But on a more direct reply - anthropology has made some significant discoveries about the history of people - including trans people. I would encourage you to look into that for more information - assuming you wish to learn more about the subject. I would also encourage you to google (or bing) terms such as "trans people brains" where there's a lot of neurological research being done. First google hit i find is https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgender-brain-what-you-should-know/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgend... There's lots of information out there, and more is being discovered every day so it's very useful to keep your eyes open on evidence - and not personal beliefs.
    - hugblx 4y ago
      Agreed, there is a lot of information out there. Some of this can be examined through scientific research, I agree, but the rest is ideological. I think it is important to distingush between the two. The brain research aims to answer the question of whether there is any fundamental neurobiological reason that some people experience strong feelings of gender incongruence. That link you found is somewhat out of date, by the way - more recent studies that control for homosexuality show correlations between this and some sex atypical brain structures and activation patterns. The only significant correlation with gender dysphoria found so far is in brain regions known to relate to body perception. And even then, researchers don't know if this is innate or due to post-natal experiences. Much more research needs to be done. This is fascinating, but, it doesn't answer any of the questions on the extent to which society, law and policy should be reorganized to accommodate people who say they have a gender identity that doesn't match their sex. There's no objective, empirical measurement to support anyone's claim of an alternative gender identity. Nor is there any scientific backing for ideas such as "male woman" or "woman's penis". Choosing to believe such claims, and the manner in which they are acted upon - often controversially in modern times, e.g. by housing males in women's prisons, letting males compete in women's sports, and so on - is an ideological stance. So I think it's very reasonable for the Science Museum to reject this particular exhibit, seeing as it included no scientific research, and only promoted a specific ideological viewpoint regarding gender identity.

aaplok 4y ago

We look back at Lysenkoism as a movement that promoted a wrong scientific theory using political means that led to censoring alternative theories and killing or imprisoning scientists. Not only have nobody been jailed or killed for promoting views antagonistic to the view of this presumed "Newchurch", but you are writing your comment under an article about how these "Newchurch" views have been censored after a complaint against them in the name of science. No matter how hard people try to believe it, we don't live in the time of Stalin and Lysenko. I feel it is disrespectful to their victims to claim that our petty frustrations are in any way comparable to their very real suffering.

hugblx 4y ago
[dead]
- aaplok 4y ago
  As unpleasant as these women's experience is, none of them are in jail, and none of them were murdered by the state for holding these views. We're a far cry from the Lysenko era. Especially because none of the parties (on either side) even claims to be doing science. What I see in the articles you linked is a lot of noise on both sides of the ideological line, using twitter first and then traditional media. We live in a noisy time, and this may have deplorable consequences, including (self)-censoring. I don't see a systematic state-led ideological war using systematic jailing and killing.

xist 4y ago

That's ... a pretty inflammatory and dismissive point of view. There's lots of evidence going back to egyptian times supporting the science behind this. Unfortunately most people only see the surface level sound bites thrown out in the media and make up their mind based on that - or what their own religion has pushed forward. I suspect that fifty years from now we will have built on all the existing knowledge (including historical) and have a more refined understanding put together.

hugblx 4y ago
Where is the science to support the idea that any male who says he's a woman actually is a woman? As that is the ideology of gender identity that is being so heavily contested today.
- xist 4y ago
  Gender identity is something that is nuanced and complex. I'm not looking for an argument but I would invite you to think of the opposite: - What is the proof that this person is not what they claim of? (ie, what ideology of yours makes you convinced of this?). This ties into deeply philosophical questions - what makes you "you"? Do you have a conscience? A soul? Is your brain the source of your identity or is your loins? Does your loins control your brain and thus your existence? But on a more direct reply - anthropology has made some significant discoveries about the history of people - including trans people. I would encourage you to look into that for more information - assuming you wish to learn more about the subject. I would also encourage you to google (or bing) terms such as "trans people brains" where there's a lot of neurological research being done. First google hit i find is https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgender-brain-what-you-should-know/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgend... There's lots of information out there, and more is being discovered every day so it's very useful to keep your eyes open on evidence - and not personal beliefs.
  - hugblx 4y ago
    Agreed, there is a lot of information out there. Some of this can be examined through scientific research, I agree, but the rest is ideological. I think it is important to distingush between the two. The brain research aims to answer the question of whether there is any fundamental neurobiological reason that some people experience strong feelings of gender incongruence. That link you found is somewhat out of date, by the way - more recent studies that control for homosexuality show correlations between this and some sex atypical brain structures and activation patterns. The only significant correlation with gender dysphoria found so far is in brain regions known to relate to body perception. And even then, researchers don't know if this is innate or due to post-natal experiences. Much more research needs to be done. This is fascinating, but, it doesn't answer any of the questions on the extent to which society, law and policy should be reorganized to accommodate people who say they have a gender identity that doesn't match their sex. There's no objective, empirical measurement to support anyone's claim of an alternative gender identity. Nor is there any scientific backing for ideas such as "male woman" or "woman's penis". Choosing to believe such claims, and the manner in which they are acted upon - often controversially in modern times, e.g. by housing males in women's prisons, letting males compete in women's sports, and so on - is an ideological stance. So I think it's very reasonable for the Science Museum to reject this particular exhibit, seeing as it included no scientific research, and only promoted a specific ideological viewpoint regarding gender identity.