How the Political Left Denies Basic Science With Regard to Gender

[PureX]

When I was a college undergrad at a fairly liberal university, I took a required class in which students were taught to recognize that there are more than two genders. This was presented as factual, and pronouns referring to other genders besides male and female were introduced. Obviously I had some objection to this at the time, but it did not occur to me until several years later how absurd and appalling it is that students are actually being taught even at the public university level that fictional genders exist. Now, to be clear, I have no problem with people who do not want to identify as being "male" or "female." It is their right to identify with a fictional gender that exists only in their imagination, but it is also my right to point out that fictional genders are not a biological reality. Perhaps there is some alien planet in which more than two genders exist, but, on earth, there are males, females, and, in exceedingly rare cases, hermaphrodites, or people who are born with ambiguous genitalia. However, many people on the left believe that the scientifically erroneous claim that there are many distinct and objectively real genders should be taught in public schools. It is appalling to me that the people on the political left want fiction to be presented to children as fact. It is just as bad as the political right wanting the fictional creation story of Genesis to be presented as fact or as an "alternative theory" in public schools. I notice that the political left (with regard to gender) is quite similar to the political right with regard to creation/evolution in the following ways:

(1) Like creationists, many liberals believe that the fictional genders that they invented should be presented as objective fact or at least as a valid alternate theory in schools.

(2) Like creationists, when people point out that they are obviously scientifically incorrect, they become overly emotional and angry since they have no way to rationally or scientifically defend the existence of their fictional genders.

(3) Like creationists, they claim that they are "victims" whose ideas are being suppressed when they are shown to be wrong.

I don't expect this to be a popular thread. But it needs to be made. The political left is clearly not pro-science. They are only pro-science when the science leans toward what they want to believe. For instance, the left supports science with regard to climate change, since the evidence is pretty strong that the climate is changing, and the left wants to believe in climate change (I'd argue it's not quite as strong as the evidence for evolution or continental drift, for instance, but that's another discussion). Similarly, the left supports science with regard to evolution (and evolution IS a scientific fact). But, sadly, the reason that they support evolutionary science is not because they care about truth, but because they don't like religion, and so are eager to support facts that align with their pre-established likes and dislikes. But, if science ever runs the risk of hurting someone's feelings, they are quick to deny it. This can be seen by the recent invention of fictional genders and the outrageous presentation of them to students as being objectively real. The "science" of gender identities is as much of a science as "creation science". In other words, it is not science at all.

I have no doubt that many people will be angry about this thread. That's a typical reaction of people who base their beliefs on emotions and whims rather than evidence and in this case, facts that are quite obvious. It is somewhat analagous to the reaction of fundamentalist Christians when I point out that the creation story of Genesis is fictional.

Your first mistake is that you blindly assumed that gender refers to a biological state rather than a cognitive experience. Your next mistake was that you blindly assumed a sociopolitical bias to hide your first mistake behind.

 

[oldbadger]

When I was a college undergrad at a fairly liberal university, I took a required class in which students were taught to recognize that there are more than two genders. This was presented as factual, and pronouns referring to other genders besides male and female were introduced. Obviously I had some objection to this at the time, but it did not occur to me until several years later how absurd and appalling it is that students are actually being taught even at the public university level that fictional genders exist. Now, to be clear, I have no problem with people who do not want to identify as being "male" or "female." It is their right to identify with a fictional gender that exists only in their imagination, but it is also my right to point out that fictional genders are not a biological reality. Perhaps there is some alien planet in which more than two genders exist, but, on earth, there are males, females, and, in exceedingly rare cases, hermaphrodites, or people who are born with ambiguous genitalia. However, many people on the left believe that the scientifically erroneous claim that there are many distinct and objectively real genders should be taught in public schools. It is appalling to me that the people on the political left want fiction to be presented to children as fact. It is just as bad as the political right wanting the fictional creation story of Genesis to be presented as fact or as an "alternative theory" in public schools. I notice that the political left (with regard to gender) is quite similar to the political right with regard to creation/evolution in the following ways:

(1) Like creationists, many liberals believe that the fictional genders that they invented should be presented as objective fact or at least as a valid alternate theory in schools.

(2) Like creationists, when people point out that they are obviously scientifically incorrect, they become overly emotional and angry since they have no way to rationally or scientifically defend the existence of their fictional genders.

(3) Like creationists, they claim that they are "victims" whose ideas are being suppressed when they are shown to be wrong.

I don't expect this to be a popular thread. But it needs to be made. The political left is clearly not pro-science. They are only pro-science when the science leans toward what they want to believe. For instance, the left supports science with regard to climate change, since the evidence is pretty strong that the climate is changing, and the left wants to believe in climate change (I'd argue it's not quite as strong as the evidence for evolution or continental drift, for instance, but that's another discussion). Similarly, the left supports science with regard to evolution (and evolution IS a scientific fact). But, sadly, the reason that they support evolutionary science is not because they care about truth, but because they don't like religion, and so are eager to support facts that align with their pre-established likes and dislikes. But, if science ever runs the risk of hurting someone's feelings, they are quick to deny it. This can be seen by the recent invention of fictional genders and the outrageous presentation of them to students as being objectively real. The "science" of gender identities is as much of a science as "creation science". In other words, it is not science at all.

I have no doubt that many people will be angry about this thread. That's a typical reaction of people who base their beliefs on emotions and whims rather than evidence and in this case, facts that are quite obvious. It is somewhat analagous to the reaction of fundamentalist Christians when I point out that the creation story of Genesis is fictional.

So you didn't learn anything, then, about the issues and facts of Asexuality, Bisexuality, Trans-sexuality, Trans-genderism, etc?

OK.......... carry on with the agenda.

 

[ecco]

So how many genders do you believe in?

Well, let's see. What does "gender" even mean...


gen·der

noun

1. 1.
   either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
   "a condition that affects people of both genders"

Look around at people. All males do not look like Adonis, all females do not look like Venus. Some people are taller than others, some are more muscular, some have better vision. It's not a matter of tall vs short, or weak vs strong, or blind vs 20/20. You have no problem seeing the subtle differences here. Yet when it comes to sexual preference, you believe there should be only two.

 

[ecco]

However, many people on the left believe that the scientifically erroneous claim that there are many distinct and objectively real genders should be taught in public schools. It is appalling to me that the people on the political left want fiction to be presented to children as fact.

I already said that I have no problem with fictional genders. I have a problem with fiction being presented as fact, and with people's insistence that everyone must accept fictional genders as factual realities.

Specifically, what fictional genders are being taught to children in public schools? Specifically, what are the ages of the children that are being taught that you object to?



ETA:

Perhaps when I used the term gender, I should've said "biological sex" by which I suppose "chromosomal configuration" might be an (approximate) definition.

OK. Specifically, what fictional genders ["biological sex" by which I suppose "chromosomal configuration"] are being taught to children in public schools?

 

[ecco]

What are you doing, reaching down every girl's panties while saying "relax ma'am, I'm just checking for penis." ?
I think women would be far more alarmed by transmen (such as the one pictured below) being forced to use the women's restroom.

I'd be annoyed at anyone with a camera in any public toilet.