Why do scientists swallow gender ideology?

I can't agree with your perception that this is just something the general public believe, like "We only use 10% of our brains".

I didn't assert that that was my perception. I was explaining why I thought some scientists (not me) might not really question this kind of thing. That they might think that "sex is binary" is equivalent to "the sun orbits the earth" or "heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects".

The history of science is littered with examples of beliefs that everyone thought obviously true, but which turned out to be incorrect once subject to scientific scrutiny. Therefore scientists may not always be inclined to immediately reject a 'crazy' idea like "There are more than two sexes" without further scrutiny, because once upon a time the belief "The earth orbits the sun" was also a 'crazy' idea.

To be clear, I am not advocating for this view, just explaining why it might exist.

Scientists have all sorts of irrational beliefs. That's why we have the scientific method,.and why the irrational beliefs are not the established evidence for gender identity, but the irrational belief it's not a real thing.

Malahaha,

But isn't it amazing that, when it comes to the crunch, people of all religions and of a less religious, more spiritual approach, do find a common denominator in what their faith actually FEELS like?

This is exactly like trans ideology. Based on feelings, not on material reality.

How do you know that your spiritual feelings actually feel like the feelings that someone else feels? Feelings are subjective. Only you can know what it feels like to you. If you start saying that you know what someone else feels, or what their feelings feel like, you're like men who say they feel like a woman. Few of us here on FWR would say that we know what feeling like a woman feels like. We feel like ourselves. We can't possibly know how another woman experiences feelings of being female.

Perhaps I'm at fault for expecting a rational response. I get the feeling this thread is doomed to go around in circles.

Thanks to the scientists for posting. I had no idea science was so political and if anyone could elaborate a bit on that I'd be interested. Do you mean the politics between disciplines and within teams and institutions or something bigger?

Oops. Here is the link:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3183515/

"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".

What seems to be the problem here?

"A "something" that can be felt internally, but never proven. Just as love cannot be proven."

As I said before, that is not the case for Love which is studied scientifically and from many different angles, notably chemically.

Here is a study that I think you will find interesting:

[[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3183515/]]

I've often noticed that my plain talking is received by other women as rudeness, whilst similar from a man would be received as assertiveness

Because women are socialised to be nice and expect other women to conform to that? No thank you.

In some universities, I think science students are generally to busy getting on with their hours of lectures and labs to really think about it!

Then, if all the messaging from the student union etc is "this is how you should act", they just internalise it and go along with it because while it doesn't seem particularly relevant to them, they think other people must have done their research, or they wouldn't be putting it out as a message.

I'm in the same line of work at Alice Roberts. Many of us feel she's gone down a very strange road.

It might placate or impress her students, who will come and go like flurries of blue- and pink-topped bobbing tides at dawn and dusk, but her peers think it's a poor show.

Drawing a sequentially hermaphroditic species of fish into a discussion - no matter how brief - about human sex is plain silly. An MSc archaeology student would be castigated for introducing such a comparator. Professor Alice Roberts really does know better.

A "something" that can be felt internally, but never proven. Just as love cannot be proven. Not some entity up in the sky.

Just as there is basically consensus as to what the feeling of "love" entails, you'd find that there is basic consensus among people of all religions what that feeling of connection to a higher power is: deep awe, love, peace, comfort, strength that comes from within. Leave deities out of it and you'll have a better understanding. Yes, it is internal, subjective, and yes it can't be proven. But its effects upon the human psyche can most certainly be measured. Just like love. There is, in fact, no difference.

But isn't it amazing that, when it comes to the crunch, people of all religions and of a less religious, more spiritual approach, do find a common denominator in what their faith actually FEELS like? And that that sense in no way contradicts physical reality and scientific facts, in fact, that the two go very well together?

[quote CoteDAzur]@TeaAndStrumpets - Sorry for confusing you with Babdoc. Your earlier post that I replied to sounded like you took replies to Babdoc very personally, which is why I didn't bother to check the names before thinking you were the poster with the "personal encounter" with her god.

Substitue "you" for "her", and the points in my post stand. Perhaps you could try answering them rather than choose the Ad Hominem way, which I thought was particularly ironic for someone who cares so much for politeness in intellectual debates.[/quote]
No problem CoteDAzur. I won't bother engaging any further though.

But I don't think there are many scientists (or many people in general) who really buy into 'sex is a spectrum'. Adults generally know how babies are made, and they know which person in a heterosexual relationship will get pregnant and that if they are in a same sex relationship they won't be able to have children without outside assistance. Everyone knows that.

I think Alice Roberts likes to be popular, Zeugma! Agree Eresh a proper programme on biological sex would be great.

@TeaAndStrumpets - Sorry for confusing you with Babdoc. Your earlier post that I replied to sounded like you took replies to Babdoc very personally, which is why I didn't bother to check the names before thinking you were the poster with the "personal encounter" with her god.

Substitue "you" for "her", and the points in my post stand. Perhaps you could try answering them rather than choose the Ad Hominem way, which I thought was particularly ironic for someone who cares so much for politeness in intellectual debates.

could he be brave enough to do a prime time show explaining the biological reality of sex?

That would be brilliant. I recommend a C4 documentary film about conception called "The Great Sperm Race" which is quite entertaining although they do reference an experiment on women in a lap dancing club apparently getting more tips when they are ovulating, so it might not be to everyone's taste!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=4qegAMEZ_Ok

You call it, @Ereshkigalangcleg🤷‍♀️

Most scientists are not experts on sex differentiation and have probably not thought about it much, so if they see credible-sounding people assert that "sex is a spectrum" they are generally inclined to go along with it

Dh and I had an interesting time watching a TV programme last week in which an archaeology team dug in peoples' back gardens (a kind of low-budget Time Team ). The highly-specialised osteo-archaeologists and facial reconstruction experts had no problem instantly identifying the jumble of bones in a pit as either male or female; in fact they did so at a glance and in seconds. It made us wonder whether some scientific disciplines or professions - like those in archaeology - just aren't going to buy the 'sex is a spectrum' line; how could they?

Then I remembered that A. Roberts used to be on Time Team , is an anatomist and did her fair share of pronouncing on the sex of the skeletons they uncovered. I just can't square the cognitive dissonance.

A cynical person might think along the lines of distraction and sowing unease.

I guess I'm too cynical for my own good.

A cynical person might think along the lines of distraction and sowing unease.

Cynical or paranoid?

I'm sorry if you need sentences to be phrased in a certain way to see the point they are making

I don't. Many people do though. And having the volume turned up to 11 constantly gets a bit headache inducing.

For reference, Pensive Pigeon runs a 'be nicer, be kinder, be more diplomatic' agenda across other threads and has kept many feminists here busy trying to work out what PP really means, or what their intention really is. A cynical person might think along the lines of distraction and sowing unease.

The JKR thing is apposite, Tea. JKR said something perfectly reasonable and was laid into for things she didn't say. I wasn't impolite. I voiced an alternative point of view that you didn't like. There's a difference.

CoteDazur you have misread the thread. Try reading it more slowly. It was Babdoc whose religious faith was rudely dismissed, I merely defended her from what I felt was unfair comment. Then shedbuilder weighed in and told me I was as bad as TRAs attacking JKR. I thought that was a bit much.

I am not a medical professional, nor have I had a brain injury. Please read the thread and stop leaping to conclusions.

You seem to have very little reading comprehension.

@NotDavidTennant - re "in general scientists are probably predisposed to believe that common sense beliefs like "sex is a binary" are wrong, because a lot of science involves discovering that things the general public believe to be true are in fact incorrect."

Homo Sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species, and this is knowledge based on hundreds of years of scientific studies. I can't agree with your perception that this is just something the general public believe, like "We only use 10% of our brains".

It's interesting when you read about life in the Soviet Union to note how many senior, respected scientists and engineers were women. Does anyone know if this continued into modern Russia today?

Disappointed to read about Alice Roberts. Given Robert Winston apparently spoke well in the House of Lords the other day, could he be brave enough to do a prime time show explaining the biological reality of sex? Would the pitch even get past producers?

I'm sorry if you need sentences to be phrased in a certain way to see the point they are making.

Being a mere arts graduate I had assumed that scientists applied rigorous tests based on evidence and testing.

When they do their own research maybe. Most scientists don't have the time to rigorously research everything else. I'm a scientist and I believe that climate change is happening, but I've never rigorously research or performed my own experiments to test it. I have to take it on trust that the people who are experts in that field know what they're talking about.

Most scientists are not experts on sex differentiation and have probably not thought about it much, so if they see credible-sounding people assert that "sex is a spectrum" they are generally inclined to go along with it. Indeed in general scientists are probably predisposed to believe that common sense beliefs like "sex is a binary" are wrong, because a lot of science involves discovering that things the general public believe to be true are in fact incorrect.