[xist]

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.

[throwawayacc3]

>There's lots of evidence going back to egyptian times supporting the science behind this.

No there isn't. There isn't any science behind this to begin with.

>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.

Exactly right.

>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.

Hopefully we'll continue with the knowledge of science based biological facts that are no longer in vogue: humans are a dimorphic species that come in male in female. That is what science has taught us.

[xist]

>No there isn't. There isn't any science behind this to begin with. Sorry I didn't realize you were an expert in this topic, but you must have slept through the lessons of SRY gene (one of the many topics that touch on this).

>That is what science has taught us.

Er, no. While you may believe what you wish, the scientific AND medical AND psychological community disagrees with your assertion. There's more research happening into it in the past 10 years than in the past 100 years with some interesting research. Unfortunately people are operating off 50+ years of knowledge handed down in elementary schools or via religion. I don't expect this is an area of study for you, so that's probably why you're not aware of these advances. At one point in time people thought the earth was flat or that people were only righthanded. I'm glad to part of the scientific community that embraces increasing knowledge regardless of how it challenges preconcieved notions. That's what science is.

Regardless, your claims relating to Lysenko are extremely hyperbolic at best - for either group in the comparison.

[operatingthetan]

>Er, no. While you may believe what you wish, the scientific AND medical AND psychological community disagrees with your assertion.

I've noticed the poster in question has a tendency to incorrectly frame opinions as fact.

[throwawayacc3]

>I've noticed the poster in question has a tendency to incorrectly frame opinions as fact.

Inconvenient facts that go against the narrative are not opinions.

[operatingthetan]

Reiterating this way shows either you are not capable of discerning the difference or you are acting in bad faith.

[throwawayacc3]

>Er, no.

Er, yes.

>While you may believe what you wish, the scientific AND medical AND psychological community disagrees with your assertion.

No they don't. "Scientific" is meaningless here, grievance studies are not science. Medical field deals with male and female humans, such is basic biology still taught in all university medical schools. Current medical books also cover male and female specific physiology (because there are only two types).

>There's more research happening into it in the past 10 years than in the past 100 years with some interesting research.

Quantity != quality. There were a lot of publications in the USSR that stated genetics was a false Western ploy.

>Unfortunately people are operating off 50+ years of knowledge

Some basic findings and facts don't change. The fact that we're carbon based organisms is 50+ old. The fact that we're sexually dimorphic mammals is 50+ year old.

>elementary schools or via religion.

Yes, Newchurch is definitely working this way.

>I don't expect this is an area of study for you, so that's probably why you're not aware of these advances.

There are no advances. You don't need to concentrate in an "area of study" to understand the fact that humans are sexually dimorphic. Grievance studies are not an "expert" field.

>At one point in time people thought the earth was flat or that people were only righthanded. I'm glad to part of the scientific community that embraces increasing knowledge regardless of how it challenges preconcieved notions.

And that science was settled decades/centuries ago, much like the fact that humans are male/female mammals. Thanks for making this point for me.

>Regardless, your claims relating to Lysenko are extremely hyperbolic at best

No at all, they're spot on.

[xist]

I asked a friend who just left med school. He laughed and said yes there's lots of evidence supporting this in his profession alone. He suggested you pick up a copy of "Principles of Transgender Medicine and Surgery" ISBN 1138857009 which was a required for one of his courses. It has hundreds of references by MDs,PHDs and the like on the medical side alone.

He did agree that quantity is not quality and recommended to use "Directory of Open Access Journals" to access a large amount of peer reviewed research that does establish the science.

You should contact everyone referenced in the book/research papers and let them know they're incorrect.

Having an open mind to learn more information is not a weakness.I work in data science adjacent and it's fascinating to see new information being uncovered all the time that does fill in missing information about everything we know - or don't know.

[throwawayacc3]

>I asked a friend who just left med school. He laughed and said yes there's lots of evidence supporting this in his profession alone.

I just asked a friend who is a professor of medicine. She laughed and said no there's no evidence supporting this in her profession alone.

>He suggested you pick up a copy of "Principles of Transgender Medicine and Surgery" ISBN 1138857009 which was a required for one of his courses.

A book that covers transgender care for mentally ill men doesn't magically make them female. They are still human males, and will always be human males.

>It has hundreds of references by MDs,PHDs and the like on the medical side alone.

None of the MDs disagree with the fact that "gender affirming care" is for human males or females, and their biology is most definitely male or female. The grievance studies PhDs are not experts in science.

>He did agree that quantity is not quality and recommended to use "Directory of Open Access Journals" to access a large amount of peer reviewed research that does establish the science.

There are none that establish "the science", there is no science backing any of it. Again, grievance studies papers are not science.

>You should contact everyone referenced in the book/research papers and let them know they're incorrect

"You should contact Hitler and Goebbels and let them know they're incorrect about the Jews."

>Having an open mind to learn more information is not a weakness

I agree.

>I work in data science adjacent and it's fascinating to see new information being uncovered all the time that does fill in missing information about everything we know - or don't know.

Data science is not biology. There is no missing information. Humans are mammals, humans are sexually dimorphic and produce two gametes. The earth is round, not flat.

[hugblx]

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]

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-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]

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.

[xist]

I'm surprised that this was an exhibit in the first place tbh with that limited information. My comments were related to the hyperbolic comparison OP did.

Trans people exist. Full Stop. Anything more than a 5 min scan of our history and scientific back to recorded times show they do exist. And there's lots of research being done today that was not done decades ago when people started to formulate their opinions. We obviously don't know everything yet but like I mentioned I expect in 50 years a lot of questions will be put to rest.

> There's no objective and empirical measurement to support anyone's claim of an alternative gender identity. Choosing to believe such claims, and then acting upon them (e.g. by housing males in women's prisons, letting males compete in women's sports, etc.) is an ideological stance.

^-- That also is an ideological stance whether you intend it or not. I don't believe the harm in the claims. The amount of people that are affected by your 2 examples seems to be in the hundreds, maybe thousands world wide so I'm perplexed why people spend so much time worrying about such edge cases.

That feels quite controlling and oppressive and I expect you would hate others to do the same to you.

What I don't understand is how this personally affects you, and why this matters so much to yourself. Were you in a prison with a trans person? Did a trans person beat you in a swimming competition last night? What did a trans person do to you?