3 ms·
Why that hypothesis? Why not "Does BPA exposure cause upper molar cavities?", or "Does BPA exposure cause tinnitis?" Those are equally random, and have the add
by IAmBroom 1y ago
Why that hypothesis? Why not "Does BPA exposure cause upper molar cavities?", or "Does BPA exposure cause tinnitis?"
Those are equally random, and have the added benefit of studying something that is a threat to human health.
- add-sub-mul-div 1y agoWe know why, I'm sure you get it, too. Roughly half the population meets new counterintuitive ideas with curiosity, and the other half discomfort. New ideas about sexuality and gender are particularly hard for the latter to process because those are such fundamental parts of our identity that it's hard to be flexible about the concepts. Everything that played out about homosexuality and interracial romance etc. is happening with transgenderism. The fear is as predictable and inevitable as the broad societal acceptance of the new idea, it just takes time to unfold and the only way out is through. Hence, this hypothesis. Half the population is compelled to work backwards from the discomfort to a comforting idea.
- 4gotunameagain 1y agoOh gee, I don't know, maybe because hormone exposure during gestation has been proven to influence the annogenital distance, a key sex indicator ? Because plasticisers are endocrine disruptors ? I don't understand why studying the causes of something has to invalidate the identity of a group of people. Clearly something causes people to be transgender. The same way something causes people to be albino. Is it offending to them if we study it ? No. Why should that be different ?