Why do scientists swallow gender ideology?

[JellySlice]

The IET recognise the inequalities women and girls face in STEM, and actively encourage and support women and girls in STEM. Yet these initiatives are open to those who 'identify' as women. Presumably that means TM and NBs are excluded.

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

I was comparing those issues to religious belief, not really TWAW.

I think "TWAW" is just obviously foolish. Some religious beliefs are also imo obviously foolish, but others are up for debate just as "free will" would be.

We treat other people as being "morally responsible" all the time. I don't think it's just a fiction that we all agree to play along with because it's socially useful. No, many of us believe it's real.

Because it's easy to go so far with a thought, reach a point you are happy with, and stop. To argue the thought further on, there has to be something you are not happy about.

1. I accept that my mother, my sister and my friend Ella are women. I've never questioned this or seen their bodies.
2. Nobody has ever questioned my sex when I stated what it was.

Conclusion: evidence shows sex as a social factor is self identified.

1. My friend Dawn says she's a woman.
2. Sex as a social factor is self identified [see earlier conclusion].
3. Anyone who questions Dawn's sex is unscientific because they have contradicted my evidence-based conclusion.
4. They are questioning her sex purely on the basis of her appearance, which is just like being racist or sexist towards women who aren't pretty.
5. My friend Dawn is upset.
6. These people who question Dawn's sex are unscientific bullies.

The missing thought is to identify whether sex really is a social factor or whether there is something else to it. But usually instead of going back to the point early in the train of thought and question the underpinning rationale of the conclusion, they retrofit further points to avoid having to do that. Such as, sex is only social because clownfish.

This is why I was so disappointed in Alice Roberts. She of all people...

That's a really interesting way to put it PermanentTemporary. Hadn't thought about it like that before.

@TeaAndStrumpets

This is why I was so disappointed in Alice Roberts. She of all people...

Pff - her main career is tv, not science. Even her professorship is based on her tv career. Ergo it would be career suicide for her to proclaim anything other than TWAW.

I remember hearing her wax lyrical about the wonder of female anatomy (esp pelvic expansion during pregnancy and birth, and the shared history of childbirth through our maternal ancestors) not that long after she had her own children. She knows.

So when she came out with the clownfish argument on Twitter, I lost all respect for her. It's self-serving bad faith.

Perhaps she has actually convinced herself that her specious arguments are valid, but no way would she present a programme on female-sexed anatomy now.

Alice Roberts had a massive public spat with her mother a couple of years ago. Her mother denounced her in The Times

Her Mum said that Alice, as a leading Humanist, was being a massive hypocrite sending her children to a church school. I read an interview where Alice said she hadn't agreed with her mother for 30 years.

All I can say is that Prof Roberts is unlikely to change her position any time soon!

Because they’re afraid not to. Afraid they’ll lose their jobs, their income, possibly their homes. It’s a shame that people feel they can’t speak openly without fear of this.

Agree it’s driven by fear a lot of the time, especially among younger scientists.

Also this:

Not all scientists are good scientists, not all science is good science.

It’s worth remembering that science is, and always has been, deeply political.

Science is a very wide field.

People who work in STEM often have done no more biology than anybody else, having dropped it in favour of Physics, Maths and Further Maths early on.

My engineering husband would be quite happy for someone to cobble together some sort of a facsimile of a woman and then argue the toss for ever as to why it is a valid concept because it fits the criterea on a list.

Intellectual cowardice.
Its such an easy lie to tell.
And you get rewards for telling it, and you're so sure you won't get caught out in a situation where the lie betrays that you know the truth.

People who say it do so because they're rewarded for it. They've sold their integrity for peer approval.

Belief in anything that can't be proved is odd amongst supposed scientists who surely have to provide evidence for all their work - so I'm bemused that any of them believe in gender ideology, God or any religion, or fairies at the bottom of the garden come to that tbh - makes me doubt their intellectual powers

Hmmm interesting

I did science at university. I was very surprised when I realised that one of my lecturers was a strong Christian!

From the word go I've not accepted that anyone can change sex, that you can 'feel like' or know you are male or female on the inside because how does anyone know how the opposite sex feels?

The whole thing doesn't stand up to any logic. And is deeply regressive.

So no I don't understand why so many scientists are twaw.

Of course many branches of science have always been very sexist. Men are men whatever their jobs. And there has been an attitude that this is for men. What are you doing here?

Talking to a bloke at work recently I realised that he strongly identifies as and with the nerdy types who (stereotypically, but often not in reality) are seen as outside the norm, different, etc

So I think it's not surprising that male science types will look at tw /GNC men and feel kinship as outsiders.

Of course this kinship is because they know they are male.

Why the women do it I have no idea. Protecting themselves probably

“we're still fighting to get small sized PPE and get the dinosaurs out of the 1960s attitude to women in the workplace”

I worked in heavy industry in Canada and had PPE to fit my small size in the 1980s. There were quite a few female engineers over the years who got on with the men just fine. Men respect good workmanship and loathe whining. Over the years a younger generation of women have gradually moved in to become operators alongside the men. The women give as good as they get. The factory pays better than dental assistant. If there is a 60's dinosaur vibe whatever that is, it doesn't phase these women.

Really? Think rationally for a moment about all the women and girls oppressed around the world by misogynistic religions. The Christian and other traditions that saw women and sex as lesser than men. Saudi Arabia's version of Islam. Catholicism in Ireland. Has transgender ideology really done more harm that millennia of oppressive religions?

Being a member of a religion, misogynistic or not, is not the same as a belief in God. Religions are man-made institutions with their own dogmas, rituals, traditions, etc. They do not represent internal faith.

There is no fixed definition of God that can be refuted or proven. Unlike the facts of sex.

Faith in a higher power is entirely subjective, as those who do have faith would never contest. But love is also subjective. I'd say most scientists know love, and nobody calls them irrational for doing so. Having strong, unprovable feelings one way or the other is not what makes a person irrational. Equating a belief in God with a belief in TRAdogma is a false analogy.

There are actually millions of scientists today (not just Christians) who believe in a higher power (called God), and always have been, and are still perfectly rational. It does not come even close to a belief in trans-ideology.

A belief in God and in science are not mutually exclusive. The two can exist very comfortably together in one person. A belief in transideology and a belief in biological fact are just that.

Anyone, however intelligent, can be irrational in their beliefs. Belief/faith has little to do with intelligence as it is conventionally defined. The most dangerous people are those of high intelligence and eloquence who hold batshit beliefs and proselytise them. IME the more batshit the belief, the more enthusiastic they are. Genderism ticks all the boxes as being completely counterfactual, anathema to common sense and contradictory to lived experience if one has ever physically encountered members of both sexes, including one’s self.

The humanists are all twaw. I know one and I think he does agree it's bullshit. Because he's so into science. But they're very kind to humans so... twaw.

I think that's some of the Alice thing. Course she knows what a woman is.

People who work in STEM often have done no more biology than anybody else, having dropped it in favour of Physics, Maths and Further Maths early on

I've said this before, all (or the vast majority of) the "but X is a scientist and doesn't believe in evolution" scientists that have been quoted at me in discussions about evolution and creationism were always engineers. For a few years the guy that was always brought up in discussions in Germany was someone who worked at the TUV (they test and inspect technical stuff, including cars) making sure that industrial balances were working properly, not sure what makes him an expert in evolution. I bet it's similar in the trans debate.
And often the other STEM subjects look down on biologists, this has changed a little in recent years since biology has become more genetics and lab work with big, shiny, expensive machines rather than "sitting in a field counting birds" as a chemist described it once to me, but there are plenty of "hard sciences' scientists around who don't take biologist all that seriously and often think they know better.

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.

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

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

Had

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.

@CoteDAzur

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.

Thanks, CoteDAzur. I did think about mentioning neurological issues to Babdoc (who is a doctor and whom one might have thought would go instantly to a neurological explanation for their experience, rather than the Bible) but because I didn't want to be impolite I let that go. But brilliant insight re Jill Bolte Taylor there. And that's why the two people I know who are committed church-going Christians describe themselves as irrational — because they know that they are making a conscious decision to build their lives around a belief and they know that's irrational.

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?

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.

"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.