Why do scientists swallow gender ideology?

My work place is made up of scientists and engineers, from all over the world. Some of them fall for gender ideology, for various reason as other pp have posted, some don’t. Why do apparently smart STEM people go for fall for it? I’m not sure why.

The only pattern I can see is that it is cultural. It flows from the recent graduates that’s come out of universities, and that I guess stemmed out of the social sciences. It tends to infect many of the millennials, the Young HR types, the SJWs because Luxury Beliefs. Gen X onwards, mostly not affected , too grounded in the reality of family life I think. I think smart people are particularly predisposed to reconciling conflicting concepts and making it their own and launching off from there, if they want to.

So....in response to OP. I think, fear, social kudos, intellectual laziness, cowardice, no skin in the game (no children), lack of empathy or pure misogyny, any of the above.

'
I'd also say that (in some sciences) because they've been trying to increase female participation, there's been a push to make it non-gendered ("labcoats on, closed toe shoes, and if you have long hair tie it back"). So I do think that maybe some scientists have ended up training themselves to ignore it in work situations.'

This is for safety surely? Not to make it non gendered.

Loads of boys on my course had long hair

It's not a generalisation. I am talking about real people I have met.

IME, quite a few people with great mathematical and scientific intelligence, are extremely lacking in social and emotional intelligence and have no education in the humanities, beyond GCSE level. Socially, they're like adult versions of twelve year-olds.

I think this is a pretty insulting and ridiculous generalisation. Having worked with people in STEM my entire adult life you will equally find people passionately involved in the arts, music, politics etc as hobbies.

Why some scientists go along with gender identity ideology is not answered by suggesting they are like 12 year olds unable to use critical thinking skills.

@BobbinThreadbare123. Good point about the gloves. I'd forgotten about that. I have very small hands and gloves that don't fit are unsafe. That is a good initiative to work on.

@toomanytrees good for you. Working alongside men doesn't faze me either but I'd still like some cutting gloves that don't fold over at the end of the fingertips because there's too much fabric left after my fingers end...

I'd say there tends to be more political involvement with environmental issues rather than 'people' issues.

I'd also say that (in some sciences) because they've been trying to increase female participation, there's been a push to make it non-gendered ("labcoats on, closed toe shoes, and if you have long hair tie it back"). So I do think that maybe some scientists have ended up training themselves to ignore it in work situations.

If you think it doesn't matter whether Jenny or Jimmy is the one doing the experiment, as long as they can do it, then why would it matter if Jenny started calling herself Jenson if it doesn't affect the results?

(I'm not saying I think this, but I can see it happening.)

TBH it's not my experience that scientists are lacking in critical thinking skills. Many are not that engaged in broader social and political issues, but that's not the same thing.

"Your definition of God as a deity."

God is a deity, though, at least as understood in Christianity. Oxford Dictionary of English defines "Deity" as "A god or goddess".

People of deeply felt faith don't go by dictionary definitions.

Very often, you'll find they discard stuff written in books and listen to their hearts. The perception of God as some man up in the sky is a childish interpretation of something far too grandiose for the human mind to come near to grasping.

If you want to see God as that, and discard that concept you are welcome to -- so do I (discard that concept).

But if you were to follow that sense of complete awe and overpowering majesty when you look up at the night sky, or contemplate the miracle of a growing foetus in a female body, and wonder if there isn't some unifying power and unsolveable mystery behind it all to great for our tiny little minds to come close to understanding -- then we must go beyond the man in the sky strawman.

It's that sense of complete wonder that has always humans wordlessly simply wonder in great awe, and to feel that awesome wonder -- be they the most primitive caveman worshipping the sun, or a scientist knowing that he hasn't even touched on that mystery, and knowing that IF there is a unifying power behind it all, then that power also created the rules of science. And feels humble beside it.
I know many humble, brilliant, Godfearing scientists who nevertheless don't think of God as a man in the sky as defined by a dictionary.

And usually that faith is most private and even secret. There is no demand that others share it, such as in TRA ideology.

But most do have an objection to being put into a cliched box, such as "you worship a deity in the sky, yes you do." And being told you MUST worship a deity in the sky, because that's how how the dictionary defines God. Yes, a complete straw man.

Well, sorry if I said too much. But this insistence that we all worship some distant and logic-defying deity in heaven is very annoying.

NASALT obviously. I made no claim that all were. (I'm a bit one myself too). I'm just describing some people I've met, who are something of a type. I expect that type is more common in maths and IT, yes.

One of the ones that comes to my mind though, is a perfectly personable, sociable biologist. Not lacking in emotional intelligence on a personal level but certainly lacking any sophisticated, or actually basic understanding of society and politics. Very black and white, simplistic and unquestioning in some ways. I think a lot of people are like that.

And yes there will be plenty of men in the humanities who don't see things from a feminist perspective, so won't engage with the issue from that perspective, or see it as their fight, of course. That's a choice not to apply their critical skills to an area that doesn't interest or affect them though. Different from not having that sort of critical skill.

We could certainly do with more science graduates in government and the civil service. I agree the narrowing of subjects at A levels is not ideal.

IME, quite a few people with great mathematical and scientific intelligence, are extremely lacking in social and emotional intelligence and have no education in the humanities, beyond GCSE level. Socially, they're like adult versions of twelve year-olds.

Meh - that's a peculiarity of the England, Wales and NI school system of A-levels. Many (most, in some depts) science academics are not from the UK and went through a school system where it's impossible to drop humanities in that way before leaving school at 18-19.

And I am a scientist. All my colleagues and many of my friends are scientists. Apart from a tendency to be introverts, it's not true at all that scientists as a group are lacking in social and emotional intelligence. We couldn't do our jobs if that were true!

It is something we (the scientists) say about people in maths and computer science, however... But we don't consider those disciplines to be sciences, really: they're the M and T in STEM.

IME, quite a few people with great mathematical and scientific intelligence, are extremely lacking in social and emotional intelligence and have no education in the humanities, beyond GCSE level. Socially, they're like adult versions of twelve year-olds.

This doesn't just apply to scientists though. Some academics in the humanities have shown themselves to be just as likely to be lacking in this respect. And some of them are actively working against women.

It seems to me that scientists are no more or less likely than anyone else to just accept the gender bullshit on the basis of 'be kind'. And I'm not aware of any evidence that scientists are more likely to lack social and emotional intelligence than anyone else is.

*IME, quite a few people with great mathematical and scientific intelligence, are extremely lacking in social and emotional intelligence and have no education in the humanities, beyond GCSE level. Socially, they're like adult versions of twelve year-olds.+

I think this is true. There are a lot of men on Twitter (and I guess in real life) who have absolutely no empathy with what women go through, or the dangers they face. Even when they are told, they prefer to put differing views down to bigotry rather than a different lived experience. I guess it's easier if you can't empathise.

Fortunately for my sanity DH also enjoys reading and music, but a LOT of his friends are as you say like adult 12 year olds. They haven't a clue about any of this.

Different types of intelligence have a lot to do with this.

IME, quite a few people with great mathematical and scientific intelligence, are extremely lacking in social and emotional intelligence and have no education in the humanities, beyond GCSE level. Socially, they're like adult versions of twelve year-olds.

So if someone tells them that the humanities people have decided that gender is the bees knees and we must all be kind, they'll go along with it precisely because they don't understand and don't care, provided it doesn't interfere with them doing their own thing.

I don't think many of that type would swallow the 'literally changing sex' idea but gender will just whoosh over their heads as an 'individual freedom and free will' thing.

There are of course many scientists with a broader palette of intelligence, education and experience. I do wonder what the biologists would think about some of the claims being made - if those claims were ever put in front of them for serious consideration.

Added to this if people redefined sex so it was a spectrum where would it get trans people? There would be no protections or provisions made for any gender or sex. So no hormonal treatments for transitioners, no surgeries for the purpose of transitioning, no protections against any perceived prejudices. Since the fragmentation to account for every point on the spectrum would be so great that it would encompass the majority of people.

I think there's a point at which complexity can overtake the broad realities.

Hence me thinking it would be a simpler step to start broadening out gender perceptions through discussion so they are deemed more normative for either sex rather than attempt just to silence the discussion.

my high-ranking doctor acquaintance who's a lesbian and a feminist yet still insists that sex is a spectrum because of hormonal variations.

But it still holds those hormones aren't definitive of sex. Sex still remains otherwise the hormone variations would be able to start a chain reaction whereby a person's DNA were changed and blood circulation was circumvented and some body parts started dropping off then new ones grown. And people could choose their sex at will if their gender identity were the deciding factor....

Shrouk El-Atar's caption. An excellent, inclusive ambition - why the need for 'cis'?

Not really the point of this thread but I posted last week about buying an Elvie pelvic muscle trainer - and this has totally put me off them! I don't want to buy from companies that insist on an ideology that I didn't sign up to - why can't they realise that this not inclusive and it is not a neutral stance?

I think there's a point at which complexity can overtake the broad realities. It's the only way I can explain my high-ranking doctor acquaintance who's a lesbian and a feminist yet still insists that sex is a spectrum because of hormonal variations. She won't accept that sex is binary and starts talking at molecular level if challenged. I'm not even sure she wants to be a trans-ally but she can't stop thinking at that meta-level. Saying female=large gametes, male = small gametes elicits a 'Yes, but what you fail to take into account...' response.

I know a scientist who works in a hospital path lab who believes fossils were planted either by the divil or jesus to test people's faith or lead them astray and into Darwinism .There's no arguing or discussion with her , she just shuts down the conversation .

So impolite of you, PensivePigeon. Be nice, be more diplomatic.

Please accept my apologies.

The thing about “feelings” is that they are a biochemical and physiological processes or signals if you will within the body to switch on or of various other biological processes such as those oxytocin hormone systems that produce the sense of well-being when things are well and lovely or the flight-flight adrenaline based hormones when something appears to pose a threat to us.

Malahaha explains very well upthread how a love/compassion/genuine well being sensation of believing that everything will be well that some people experience because they absolutely believe that a higher power will look after them in times of difficulty. For many humans their mind creates that sense and internal place of peace when they think of a God so it is a very mentally healthy thing for them to pursue that state of well-being by conjuring up that mental state of spirituality.

However it is we as humans with our cognitive abilities that try to constantly add some deep meaning to these physiological processes and in fact all of our experiences including our feelings to try to help us to adapt to the circumstances around us.

But feelings do not make things that are materially unreal a truth.

why the irrational beliefs are not the established evidence for gender identity, but the irrational belief it's not a real thing.

You are conflating, as you are on another thread this morning, the fact that people in a sexed body know what sex they are, with males thinking they feel like females (and vice versa), despite not knowing how being female would be different from being male. There is no "established evidence" or consensus that it is possible for a male to be "born into the wrong body" or have a "female gender identity". It is ideology.