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'?

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

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

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.

You call it, @Ereshkigalangcleg🤷‍♀️

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

@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.

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

@NotDavidTennant

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.

I agree with this in part. Nobody has the time or ability to read everything on every aspect of every scientific area, so much of this has to be taken on trust (research published in respected peer reviewed journals).

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.

[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.

@CoteDAzur

"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.

Well, that's it, isn't it. Your definition of God as a deity. I spoke of a higher power, which I also believe in, not a "deity".

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?

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.

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'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.

"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/]]

Oops. Here is the link:

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

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?

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.

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.

@pensivepigeon

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

Cynical or paranoid?

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

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.

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.

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

Please accept my apologies.

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 .

@NotDavidTennant

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.

Another issue occurs to me, NotDavidTennant. I have a physicist cousin who seems to experience the world at a molecular level — so he'll look at a photo of something (anything) and start talking about it in terms of fractals and the origin of light particles and so on, or we'll be eating a piece of cake and he'll talk about the molecular effect baking has on the ingredients that gives the cake its flavour. It's interesting when I can keep up but it's often seemed to me that because he understands the existence of a photo on a phone screen at that level of complexity he doesn't actually see or appreciate the photo as a photo. If that makes any sense.

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.

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.

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....