What do you think of this quote?

[Juxtapose]

People on the last question got hung up on some weird shit like transgender bears so I want to really narrowly focus on a specific quote by Ben Shapiro.

"if you are trying to define male and female with reference to any subjective category that cannot be identified with any metric whatsoever besides how you feel today, I challenge whether that is scientific or whether that is merely a self-perception being guided by political ideology.".

So go on, tell me how that is scientific.

[Sasahara]

He is right.

Of course there is a difference between man and woman.

The crap he describes is not any more scientific than thinking God is real because you feel like there should be a god. The difference is that SJWs wallow in the bullshit the pronouns briagde spew, so unlike God, this hogwash has their support.

They don’t even realize what self-own their lack of ability to tell the difference between men and women is. If you were to take that train of thought to its conclusion, it would mean that trans surgeries are no more important than for example cosmetic surgery on your nose, because if there is no difference between man and woman, as they claim, they can’t claim the body you are born in is "wrong"

[Juxtapose]

And also the fact that they say there is in unlimited amount of genders and you can change them anytime you want, it becomes just another form of a name because each individual will have a different gender because of I am a special snowflake syndrome.

[Juxtapose]

*an unlimited

[Sasahara]

Yup, they also can’t explain why troons only transition into men or women instead of all these other mysterious genders.

[SotiCoto]

I think Ben Shapiro is a bit of a twat, but even broken clocks are right twice a day... unless they're 24 hour... in which case once a day.

And I try not to have strong opinions on the whole topic of transgenderism, mostly because I actively do not give a sh! t and just wish the entire topic would lose popularity and stop being a thing already.

[IslaTheWitch]

how we feel about ourselves is not a science... and whoever says our personal choices and preferences are science is stupid... It can be based on some psychological theories but still, we have there more holes than proven stuff, lol

[msmissydc]

Meanwhile transphobes ignoring psychology is a science... 🤣🤣🤣
Quoting Shapiro just gave me the rest. You can't be serious. 🤣🤣

[Juxtapose]

Ad hominem attack & arguing from a position of incregibility. That's a weak response.

[Juxtapose]

Male & female is not a psychological classification by the way. Hundreds of years after you and I are both dead, scientists will be able to deduce if we were male or female simply by our bone structure. Our pelvic structure alone would give that away.

[msmissydc]

That is actually not true. Many people just think it is. www.discovermagazine.com/.../skeletal-studies-show-sex-like-gender-exists-along-a-spectrum

So my argument that you dont think psychology is a science is weak, while also believing in untrue myths yourself?

[Juxtapose]

The exceptions prove the rule. There is no third sex, that was a woman with unfortunate mutations. That's like arguing that people with six finger bones prove that five finger bones are not the human norm.

Even the most confusing to distinguish intersex person is not a hermaphrodite. They are either a male or a female with deformities.

Like I said, the exceptions prove the rule.

[msmissydc]

That's not how you use that statement correctly though. At least not for your case. A proof in a scientific sense is a kind of test. Therefore proving a theory in science is equivalent to giving exceptions to a rule to found a theory based to include those.

[Juxtapose]

Intersex people are still male or female and it being harder to determine that does not erase that fact.

I find it incredibly unscientific to say that a psychological phenomenon of subjective self-identification has anything to do with biological sex. These people say there are unlimited numbers of genders and they can change these genders on a whim. Yeah I am supposed to believe that has any basis in science? It's a social phenomenon.

[msmissydc]

Do you know the difference between gender and sex?

[Juxtapose]

Gender is a strictly linguistics term that was co-opted by sex offender researchers such as John Money and Alfred Kinsey.

Gender and sex are synonymous and mean the same thing. As a matter of fact, gender was previously used to describe biology while sex did not become a usage for the term of biology until sometime in the 1900s.

[Juxtapose]

So if anything, "gender" is about as focused on biology as you can get.

[msmissydc]

John money, specifically created gender. As a concept to have a distinction between the sex that only has two options. He was the first at the start and it only evolved from there.
Alfred Kinsey was someone who nearly led a sexual revolution, using him as a source to proclaim science cannot advance in this field is just wild.
So no, J. Money already said sex and gender is not the same otherwise he wouldn't have created gender in the first place. And A. Kinsey literally advocated for modernized research in sexuality. Saying his work is the last to accept is ruining his whole work.

[msmissydc]

So I read a bit more into it. Money used questionable methods to put it mildly. The conclusion of his experiment was bassically that you can't force a gender on someone. This means its bassically a proof against the grooming argument. They either see it themselves that way or not, you can't force someone successfully into a gender. Forcing a cisgender person to be a transgender doent work. That is the conclusion of his experiment.
Also it says nothing about actual Trans people, because that would be an inverse fallacy.

[Juxtapose]

"Money argued that social gender is encoded in infancy for either female or male. Each infant assimilates both halves of the code, identifying with one and complementing the other. For Money, parents transmit to their children an intimate sense of male or female being, which he called a gender identity. This process, Money said, occurred during the first three years of the child’s upbringing. Money’s gender identity was the opposite of biological sex determinism."

"He conducted sexological studies on intersexual children, sexual fantasies, paraphilias and especially pedophilia, defending what he called ‘affective’ pedophilia. He was objected to for attempting to normalize pedophilia. And he was singled out for allegedly pedophilic practices in experiments on children. He created the terms gender dysphoria, chronophilia, lovemap and gendermap, sexosophy, gender crossover, gynemimesis and andromimesis, among others. His positions on the exercise of sexuality, paraphilias and especially pedophilia were very controversial. But he enjoyed enormous prestige for his gender theory."

"In 2002, Brian Reimer, who had developed schizophrenia, died of a drug overdose. And on May 5, 2004, David Reimer committed suicide. Unable to bear the guilt, Reimer’s father committed suicided. Money felt no guilt, nor did he care about the family tragedy. In fact, he claimed until the end of his days that the experiment was a success and the media reports of its failure a conspiracy of the political right."

elamerican.com/.../

[Juxtapose]

"John Money was a psychologist/sexologist who was the first to suggest that human beings have both a sex and a gender and that they are not necessarily intertwined. Rather than accept the obvious - that the human sex binary reflects a wide range of masculine and feminine characteristics - Money asserted that these traits are simply social constructs that are inexplicably malleable and determinative at the same time."

A man being viewed as more of a risk taker and more aggressive is because of biological factors. Of course not every man is like that but it is rooted in biology. It is not purely cultural like these pedophile sexologists say.

[Juxtapose]

"As a sexologist, Money claimed that sexual identity–which he called gender identity–was independent of genetics and determined by upbringing. It was he who, in the English language, moved the term gender from the study of language to the health sciences, while studying hermaphroditism in the Department of Psychiatry and Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Money argued that social gender is encoded in infancy for either female or male. Each infant assimilates both halves of the code, identifying with one and complementing the other. For Money, parents transmit to their children an intimate sense of male or female being, which he called a gender identity. This process, Money said, occurred during the first three years of the child’s upbringing. Money’s gender identity was the opposite of biological sex determinism."

How does a parent transfer that sense of male or female to a child? Where is his evidence for that? What the hell does it even mean to feel like a male or a female? I could act and even look just like a woman in a traditional western sense but that doesn't change my classification from male to female.

In order to change that classification from biology to a subjective sense of self, there needs to be a enormous mountain of evidence which has simply not been provided. Instead we get these perverts who experiment on children who later kill themselves and the man even made a chart where he measured how long it took for minors as young as four years old to have orgasms.

[OddBeMe]

I would suggest look at race. No real science there either. Just ancestry. So if someone feels like they should be the opposite gender, I don’t see an issue. A doctor and patient have their confidentiality.

And my “masculinity” is not so fragile I need to tell others how to think.

[Juxtapose]

Anyone with a basic understanding of science knows that race is a series of arbitrary phenotypes. Irrelevant since I don't push the concept of race.

Let's go back to the original topic.

[OddBeMe]

I feel like I answered it already.

[DJB72]

It isn't. It's ideological.

[laly520]

they dont use science for it

[Exterminatore]

I agree with him.