One of the current popular Democratic Party talking
points is to accuse Republicans of being “anti-science,” over their opposition
to much of the climate change (formerly known as Global Warming) legislation
and international agreement. For example,
we have Senator Bill Nelson’s (D-FL) rant about the “war on science” (see: Florida
Politics - Bill Nelson takes aim at Rick Scott and GOP's war on science).
For the record I believe in science, but I also believe
that scientists are human, not infallible, and when politics and science get mixed up together all kinds of strange things happen. For example, it's a curious thing to me that the party that cries the loudest about
their concern over science is the same party that cherry picks the science
they like, and the science they don’t to just about the same degree as those other guys who are accused of being "anti-science." For
example: I believe in biology and don’t believe psychology can undo biology just for convience. Yet, here we have a dilemma within the social
order of the progressive movement.
Biology tells us there are normally two genders, male and
female, in most species (there are some notable exceptions) and those genders
are assigned during the development of the embryo. For humans it is determined by the addition
or lack of a chromosome when the egg is fertilized. Except now the scientists of the left are
advocating that we pick our gender, based not on biology, but on our
psychological feelings and how we perceive ourselves within the society. If we challenge this position are we “anti-science?” Of course we are; for that is the progressive
view and progressives are always right.
Just like when they advocated for eugenics as a way to improve our
society, or for lobotomies as a way to end our depression.
As a way to get around this annoying fact, we see
increasing separation of the terms sex and gender so in the future the science
loving fans of the left will be able to say the two have never been synonymous
and what’s the big deal? Of course this will all be supported by the social “scientists”
who will poll popular opinions from a small sample group, apply their anti-bias
models, and determine the majority of the earth agree the two terms have
never had the same meaning.
Once again progressive science will triumph over the forces of anti-science. Huzzah!
3 comments:
Ah, the way you talk you would think that logical consistency was something to be valued.
Your assertion (assumption) about what biology says about gender is incorrect. It's not nearly so binary and there are a wealth of examples from both animals and humans that indicate that gender is both changeable. The hard binary idea is a lot more about tradition telling biology what it should be than the other way around. There are examples of amphibians, reptiles, fish, and even mammals capable of changing genders. There is evidence that secondary sexual characteristics are multi-gene systems (and the only gene on the Y chromosome in humans is Sex Determining Factor) and that the genes that influence brain structure are not the same genes that determine other secondary characteristics. I know you think trans is purely a psychological phenomenon and has nothing to do with "real biology" and "real science", but I'm just a lowly biologist with a genetics specialty cert so who am I to try to tell you different about what biology tells us.
Colin, one again you cite your undergraduate degree background as support of your assertions. Tell you what, if there are a wealth of examples, it should be easy to provide one or two to support your claim that human gender determination (male or female) is not based on the Y chromosome.
If you would care to define "secondary sexual characteristics that are multi-gene systems" that would be great as well.
Post a Comment