Why do scientists swallow gender ideology?

You don't get it, do you? This is exactly the #bekind rubbish that is used to silence feminists re FWAW.

As I have said, being nice doesn't 'silence' anyone. Use courteous language and this accusation falls flat.

There is nothing wrong with being nice.

There is nothing wrong with being agreeable in the sense of that personality trait that seeks to have people living as harmoniously as possible together and people focussing on growing and developing that trait in themselves since we now know that personalities are not fixed and can develop over a lifetime of experiences.

But these days to me the suggestions that people should “be kind/nice” these days seems more about silencing.

Absolutely, gender stereotypes are too narrow.

Exactly. Let those people which are hugely (over) invested in gender explore their cultural stereotypes and with (our help widen) them out completely so that they no longer serve as a stereotype and no one really cares about them.

Sex can then go back to describing what it was mean to describe - our biology.

@TeaAndStrumpets - "When shedbuilder was fucking rude"

Please show where you feel that @Shedbuilder was "fucking rude", with a quote of her post.

"It was so bracing to be likened to "TRAs attacking JKR", it did me the world of good."

The point of an intellectual discussion about scientific thought is not to do "a world of good" to any of its participants. As a former medical professional, you shouldn't need to be told this.

"It also cheered me up no end to see having a religious experience dismissed as doubtless a brain injury."

I didn't say your "personal encounter" was doubtless a brain injury. I said that is one of the things I would worry about and explore, definitely much sooner than thinking "Oh that must have been the creator of all universe who just talked to me, since there can be no other explanation."

"If women can't show a little compassion to one another and think outside their own tiny lives for a while, why are they even bothered to claim to be feminists?"

You don't get it, do you? This is exactly the #bekind rubbish that is used to silence feminists re FWAW. Show compassion to transwomen who are oh so sad and disadvantaged. Just say they are women, why won't you, when you are women and hence you must disregard what you know as fact because you must hold feminine values such as being kind and gentle above standing up for rational thought

"This is supposed to be a discussion about men in STEM subjects"

Are you reading a different thread? This one is called Why do scientists swallow gender ideology? and is about why people who are presumably educated to believe only that which is scientifically evidenced, tested, and independently found true can sometimes believe in dogma like FWAW which is just a belief in some people's heads.

It's fascinating that you can't or don't want to see this.

but not as a tool to silence people in an intellectual discussion, where "That's not nice" shouldn't be used to discredit someone's contribution.

It doesn't need to. An apology for the less nice aspect of whatever has been said and a reframing of the point so it is made in the most courteous language available completely suffices.

Sensationalism unfortunately does appeal to many people but it is too easy to discredit to serve well.

Culture affects actions, it affects legislation and now we are seeing it very clearly affecting science. Yes, we very much we need to protect children but culture change is a big part of this. It is there right at the start where a child might worry or be encouraged to worry their body is somehow wrong because they feel their interests do not fit neatly into a rigid stereotypical box.

Instead of outrightly rejecting their existence and influence why not broaden the stereotypes out so they are so wide they emerge into each other and it removes their restrictive and rigid nature.?

"There is nothing wrong with being nice."

Agreed, but not as a tool to silence people in an intellectual discussion, where "That's not nice" shouldn't be used to discredit someone's contribution.

Exploitation- be it porn, prostitution, surrogacy. These are the human rights issues which need a cultural change IMO. Child protection is a massive part of this, I think women tend to worry more about that side of things.

I was socialised to be nice

There is nothing wrong with being nice. It is a useful tool in the arsenal! Nice often goes unnoticed which aids in smoothly getting people to assimilate new ideas which they might otherwise find contentious.

I would say this is worth remembering. Too much shouting just becomes like white noise.

Gender ideology is a cultural phenomenon. Scientists, whether they like it or not, try to resist it or not, attempt to specifically minimise its influence, are subject to the culture around them. It's a form of environmental influence. It's impossible to reduce all biases. There's cultural influences in science all over the place regarding what is being researched, interpretation of results, recognition of biases, etc etc

I think we'd all agree it's about time for a culture change. Rather than outright rejecting the emergence of a new flawed culture why not steer it and redefine it towards one that is fairer to the whole of society which most definitely includes females which form over half the population?

[quote CoteDAzur]@Shedbuilder - re "because I didn't want to be impolite I let that go"

IMHO this is one of intellectually limiting shackles imposed on us by gender roles that we must strive to overcome. It is no different than #bekind used to shut women up about the TWAW hypothesis.

There is an intellectual discussion going on in this thread. Why would it be impolite to simply voice your relevant thoughts? Can you imagine men not making a point in similar circumstances because it could be seen as impolite?

Impolite would be saying "You are an idiot". What you said was that an experience or feeling in one's own head is not evidence for the existence of a god, which was a perfectly valid point made in a civil manner.[/quote]
Thanks, Cote. I was socialised to be nice (including Sunday school indoctrination) and being told I'm rude for stating something obvious always touches a soft spot. I need to build up some intellectual confidence: I think the arts have taken such a bashing over the years that I've forgotten that my degree did actually give me some useful skills.

This is actually so true. I have been conditioned by decades of female socialisation not to be rude to people, try and keep a civil discussion going etc. I see the error of my ways. When shedbuilder was fucking rude I referred to "impoliteness", my mistake, I should have been more direct. It was so bracing to be likened to "TRAs attacking JKR", it did me the world of good. It also cheered me up no end to see having a religious experience dismissed as doubtless a brain injury.

If women can't show a little compassion to one another and think outside their own tiny lives for a while, why are they even bothered to claim to be feminists? This is supposed to be a discussion about men in STEM subjects, but has been derailed by pontificating and ego trips.

Going back to the original screenshot that Jelly Slice posted, although there shouldn't be any need for 'cis', I noted that the engineer designs smart tech solutions to improve the lives of "cis women and trans men", i.e. she biological females. It doesn't sound like they have swallowed gender ideology.

@Shedbuilder - re "because I didn't want to be impolite I let that go"

IMHO this is one of intellectually limiting shackles imposed on us by gender roles that we must strive to overcome. It is no different than #bekind used to shut women up about the TWAW hypothesis.

There is an intellectual discussion going on in this thread. Why would it be impolite to simply voice your relevant thoughts? Can you imagine men not making a point in similar circumstances because it could be seen as impolite?

Impolite would be saying "You are an idiot". What you said was that an experience or feeling in one's own head is not evidence for the existence of a god, which was a perfectly valid point made in a civil manner.

DH and I are both molecular biologists and most definitely GC, so NASALT But I would say that, like many others who have a mortgage to pay and a family to support, we feel we have to be careful with what we say in public - I am in awe of those who are actively "out" and do wish we dared to be braver.

Being a mere arts graduate I had assumed that scientists applied rigorous tests based on evidence and testing. It comes as something of a shock to realise that engineers can and will believe anything

What I have found interesting in Engineering, speaking here in sweeping generalisations which of course does not universally apply, is that although the scientific process is applied rigorously to everything around us, self examination and self awareness is in my experience far less prevalent than in say social sciences/arts degree where critical and ethical thinking are far more developed. I did an MA and the approach to learning/teaching was so far removed from my academic experience to that point. That said Engineering can be conservative and so can many Engineers in my experience and I don’t think that gender ideology would gather massive sway in the hearts and minds of the majority of Engineers.

"I'd say most scientists know love, and nobody calls them irrational for doing so"

Love is fairly well understood in terms of evolutionary pressures and chemistry, much like Pain. There is ample evidence for its existence, symptoms, and the pituitary hormones that are released in its creation.

Knowing love and understanding that other animals also feel it after at least a century of scientific experiments has nothing to do with believing in an invisible deity without a shred of independent evidence.

science is, and always has been, deeply political.
This, and very often male-dominated at senior levels so this issue doesn’t affect them and everyone wants to improve diversity (rightly).
And academic institutions already pay lip service to ‘women’s issues’ (like Athena Swan) so the senior blokes think women are already being helped and this is just the turn of another group of unhappy people to need some support.

They don’t connect to the experience of female colleagues who have to budge up to accommodate men in female spaces and what that feels like for them on top of all the other sexist shit that academic life and scientific research bring up.

And the senior blokes need to consider the big research grants that they have to bring in to get their teams going. And will have fears if they are ostracised about their handling at peer review and maintaining their personal repututaion which is essential to their institution and are worried about keeping in with the research funders who are all TWAW.

And all the individual, public blackballing things that happen (like that awful open letter by philosophers) = academia was always a very backstabby insecure place. Particularly for women. but politically it’s a perfect storm.

Interesting input from those in STEM. Being a mere arts graduate I had assumed that scientists applied rigorous tests based on evidence and testing. It comes as something of a shock to realise that engineers can and will believe anything.

I know that my arts degree required me to analyse texts, think about context, look at something from various angles, go to other sources for comparison and so on. Above all, not to let anything go unquestioned.

Do scientists learn more by rote — is that the issue? But surely the process of scientific enquiry and experimentation encourages a 'hold on a minute, is that really accurate?' mindset?

The thing about TRAs is it is not just the loudest vessels being the empty vessels but also who is funding them. I know transpeople who are rational sorts who are aware that there are certain aspects of the female experience that need their spaces, like childbirth. And that self-ID can and has been abused. Not to mention that they have been harmed by TRA ideology. In general, it sucks to be a transperson even now, since it seems to be entrenching people, not bringing people together.

However, I have also had someone NC me when I pointed out they when it comes to women-only spaces and sports, having had a full male puberty does give some advantages even with full treatment post-hoc. No to mention they haven't had to deal with periods at school. Whereupon I got cancelled for stating facts.
I know it isn't representative of all people but it sucks when you think you know someone and you are wrong.

Had

The distinction between sex and gender and the distinction between the normative (what should be) and the positive (what is or is not or what can be disproved) is not something that scientist are trained to think about. Its more of a social science area. Thus they cite evidence such as gender roles being different across species to mean that there is no sex.
In terms of data (e.g. the census) Many scientists neither get the the value of quantitative social science or the real importance of structural inequality. - Thus it does not really matter to them if the data is corrupted.In terms of the trade off the relative value of extra woke points in saying TWAW is much higher than the cost of any data loss to them

Well I feel love for my children. Maybe this is irrational because they can be annoying and cost me a fortune. I don't insist that the rest of humanity also loves my children. As pp have said, many people have an internal belief system that wouldn't stand up to close analysis, yet is totally real to them. Most humans are irrational about something. Being compassionate and understanding of this can also seem irrational to some.

BTW I've the trippy universal thing after 16 hours of drug free labour. Far out

Interesting thread.

I am also surprised to see some scientists espousing the fuzzy and feelings-based TRA view of human sexual dimorphism, disregarding centuries of scientific knowledge in favour of "inclusivity".

As @Shedbuilder and @Bertiebiscuit said, this is comparable to any belief system that is built on hearsay and subjective feelings. Belief in gods and/or religious dogma is the most obvious example.

Just like womanhood doesn't become a fuzzy feeling in all our heads just because some males feel or experience that makes them think they are women, @Babdoc's deity doesn't actually exist because he had a feeling or experience that made her think she had a "personal encounter". And @Shedbuilder isn't "impolite" to say that having some kind of "experience" that only you have witnessed is not evidence of something's existence. It is a fair and rational comment, which you would have also thought to say as a medical professional, if a patient told you that they saw aliens or talking grasshoppers.

I have met pharmacists who recommend homeopathy, although you would think that knowing a solution actually loses its potency as it's heavily diluted is basic knowledge at whichever school they got their diplomas from. Unfortunately, having a science diploma and working in a scientific field does not mean that one always looks at the world through a scientific lens and verifies all new information/experience against the body of their scientific knowledge.

And those of us who are not scientists can be very scientific in how they perceive and evaluate their world. If I had a "personal encounter with God", I would not presume to have discovered the answer to one of mankind's oldest questions just because I had a feeling in my head. I would seek medical help, suspecting the sudden onset of a neurological disorder presenting with psychosis, a brain tumour, or a stroke.

That is exactly what happened to brain scientist Jill Bolte Taylor, incidentally. In her auto-biographical book My Stroke of Insight, she describes an "expanding sense of grace" where her "consciousness soared into an all-knowingness, a 'being-at one' with the universe".

She was having a stroke.