[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.