Transgender

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.
 
Last edited:
Malifice said:
Lets presume you unearth a process that [you think] falsifies the theory of evolution. You're pretty chuffed with yourself.

Now what?

You're not describing science, you're describing having an opinion.

Science only becomes good science when the theory is put to the test. That's what peer review and consensus does. It lets every other scientist in the world attempt to poke holes in your theory, review it and either confirm it be being unable to falsify it, or prove it false. The more that try and disprove your theory (an fail) the more likely it becomes. If they succeed in demonstrating your theory false, we start again.
Click to expand...

You are describing reproducible experiments here, not peer review. Scientific theories are not proven false by reason or argument, they are proven false by experiment and experiment alone. Where experiment is difficult or cannot happen (eg geology, biology) it is proven false by data. That is the fundamental basis of science.

It lives or dies by measured observations of natural phenomena. Nothing else.

You have heard of falsification right? Youre (allegedly) a 'scientist' after all. One who apparently believes in pseudoscience like 'biological race', doesn't understand the process of falsification, and thinks personal opinion is all one needs for good science.

Can I ask, what particular field of science you're in?
Click to expand...
Engineering and geophysics.
 
its free real estate said:
You are describing reproducible experiments here, not peer review. Scientific theories are not proven false by reason or argument, they are proven false by experiment and experiment alone. Where experiment is difficult or cannot happen (eg geology, biology) it is proven false by data. That is the fundamental basis of science.
Click to expand...

And you can repeat your experiments in your own home as much as you want, and it doesn't mean one iota of difference.

When you publish your theory, and thousands of other scientists set about trying to prove you wrong, and fail, you're onto something.

Thats what peer review, consensus and falsification is. Otherwise all you have is an opinion.

It lives or dies by measured observations of natural phenomena. Nothing else.
Click to expand...

And race (what you're measuring) isnt a natural phenomeona. It's a socially constructed one. And youre randomly picking what to measure (or ignore) depending on your own arbitrary and variable (by race) qualities. Not all of which are even biological to begin with.

Engineering and geophysics.
Click to expand...

OK, lets presume that I have uncovered a theory that proves the law of inertia, false.

Do you concede that my theory becomes stronger if I publish it, and thousands of other Engineers and geophysics gurus set about trying to disprove me, and fail? That maybe I missed something, or there was an error in my assumptions or math or data or my theory or in the experiment itself?

That's the purpose of peer review. To test your theory robustly, and either strengthen it (no-one can prove you wrong) so it becomes the consensus until someone else comes along and replaces it with something better, or they falsify it.

One paper or person critical of a theory doesnt disprove the theory. Those views need to be put to peer review and survive falsification till they become the new consensus (the new accepted theory).
 
Kidd Vicious said:
You know full well that nobody is suggesting there isn't some susceptibility to certain diseases that has afflicted some ethnic groups.

The issue is that racialism has been revived as a concept (not by anyone trained in the field though) by people who want to push the idea that some racial groups are inferior in terms of their suitability for Western liberal society.
Click to expand...
"Revived"?
"Suitability for Western liberal Society"?
"Trained in the field"? Of what? Racism?

Geez.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Malifice said:
And you can repeat your experiments in your own home as much as you want, and it doesn't mean one iota of difference.

When you publish your theory, and thousands of other scientists set about trying to prove you wrong, and fail, you're onto something.

Thats what peer review, consensus and falsification is. Otherwise all you have is an opinion.
Click to expand...

Peer review is not that. You are talking about experiment. You experimental conclusions can only be proved wrong by further experiments. Not peer review. It doesn't matter how well argued those who disagree with your experimental conclusions are, what matters is if they run their own experiments and show that your hypothesis is wrong. That is all that matters.

And race (what you're measuring) isnt a natural phenomeona. It's a socially constructed one. And youre randomly picking what to measure (or ignore) depending on your own arbitrary and variable (by race) qualities. Not all of which are even biological to begin with.
Click to expand...
It isn't a natural phenomena? The differences in skin colour, hair follicles, facial shape, dietary tolerances, etc aren't natural? What are they then? Why do people from the Tibetan plateau have a far more efficient use of haemoglobin than other 'races' around the world (and this can be shown by genetics)?

OK, lets presume that I have uncovered a theory that proves the law of inertia, false.
Click to expand...
You don't uncover a theory. You conduct an experiment. The results of that experiment disagree with the prevailing theory of conservation of momentum. You then go to publish them, in a prestigious journal hopefully, and it is at this point they are peer reviewed. The peer review process does a number of things here, it checks whether your experiment was well designed, whether there are no glaring errors in the results, whether your conclusions derive from your measurements, whether you've complied with ethical requirements for conducting experiments. What it does not do is falsify your results. It simply looks for errors in the process - whether you have followed the scientific method.

If it is published it then becomes a race for scientists to 1. reproduce your experiment, and 2. run further experiments that might derive from the consequences of your conclusions. None of this is called peer review. Only this secondary process can falsify the conclusions of your experiment.
 
Last edited:
its free real estate said:
Peer review is not that. You are talking about experiment. You experimental conclusions can only be proved wrong by further experiments. Not peer review. It doesn't matter how well argued those who disagree with your experimental conclusions are, what matters is if they run their own experiments and show that your hypothesis is wrong. That is all that matters.


It isn't a natural phenomena? The differences in skin colour, hair follicles, facial shape, dietary tolerances, etc aren't natural? What are they then? Why do people from the Tibetan plateau have a far more efficient use of haemoglobin than other 'races' around the world (and this can be shown by genetics)?


You don't uncover a theory. You conduct an experiment. The results of that experiment disagree with the prevailing theory of conservation of momentum. You then go to publish them, in a prestigious journal hopefully, and it is at this point they are peer reviewed. The peer review process does a number of things here, it checks whether your experiment was well designed, whether there are no glaring errors in the results, whether your conclusions derive from your measurements, whether you've complied with ethical requirements for conducting experiments. What it does not do is falsify your results. It simply looks for errors in the process - whether you have followed the scientific method.

If it is published it then becomes a race for scientists to 1. reproduce your experiment, and 2. run further experiments that might derive from the consequences of your conclusions. None of this is called peer review. Only this secondary process can falsify the conclusions of your experiment.
Click to expand...
They've actually found a Denisovan/Neanderthal hybrid in Russia, a few years ago. As in, no Homo Sapiens DNA at all. Fascinating stuff.
It's known that different pre-homo sapiens groups existed and interbred in different regions prior to homo sapiens becoming the only remaining "humans". It's also known that those groups contributed to differing amounts of DNA dependant on region - e.g. Asians (as a rule of thumb) have more Denisovan DNA, Europeans more Neanderthal. Africans have less of either. Even to this day.

Prior to modern times, the genetic makeup of humanity from differing regions was markedly different to what it is today.
Modern mobility and genetic drift have all but erased most of those differences (in most high traffic areas) but to argue (as the usual suspects are) that there have never been any differences, or that those differences do not still exist to some extent or another, is ludicrous. "Race is a social construct" is the catch cry of some very ignorant folks, but that ignorance is based more upon fear than anything else. The thing is, of course, that eventually, they're going to absolutely correct. Genetic drift has all but erased those differences even as of right now, but the argument and belief that there have never been any differences is an ongoing one.

The problem is one of vested interest.

The reason racism is decried as a modern evil is for the purposes of social cohesion.
Setting aside the arbitrary emotive argument, modern social integrity relies completely upon the rule of law. That rule of law relies upon certain "gold standards" of belief, "all men are equal" being perhaps the most important (in this context). Without that standard, the laws themselves would become more or less meaningless.
Hence the fear of confronting or engaging in a true examination of those beliefs.

Imagine how absolutely terrifying the social consequences of a final scientific discovery that all races are not equal would be upon those whose belief systems are inherently invested in that belief. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is not a scientific or researched position. It is one of faith.

You're wasting your time in this thread. Or, as it happens, pretty much anywhere, arguing for investigation into the truth of the matter.
It's a similar thing as arguing about religion - there is very little in the way of rational common ground.
 
_Wildcard_ said:
Imagine how absolutely terrifying the social consequences of a final scientific discovery that all races are not equal would be upon those whose belief systems are inherently invested in that belief. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is not a scientific or researched position. It is one of faith.
Click to expand...
Are you making this argument or not?
 
_Wildcard_ said:
They've actually found a Denisovan/Neanderthal hybrid in Russia, a few years ago. As in, no Homo Sapiens DNA at all. Fascinating stuff.
It's known that different pre-homo sapiens groups existed and interbred in different regions prior to homo sapiens becoming the only remaining "humans". It's also known that those groups contributed to differing amounts of DNA dependant on region - e.g. Asians (as a rule of thumb) have more Denisovan DNA, Europeans more Neanderthal. Africans have less of either. Even to this day.

Prior to modern times, the genetic makeup of humanity from differing regions was markedly different to what it is today.
Modern mobility and genetic drift have all but erased most of those differences (in most high traffic areas) but to argue (as the usual suspects are) that there have never been any differences, or that those differences do not still exist to some extent or another, is ludicrous. "Race is a social construct" is the catch cry of some very ignorant folks, but that ignorance is based more upon fear than anything else. The thing is, of course, that eventually, they're going to absolutely correct. Genetic drift has all but erased those differences even as of right now, but the argument and belief that there have never been any differences is an ongoing one.

The problem is one of vested interest.

The reason racism is decried as a modern evil is for the purposes of social cohesion.
Setting aside the arbitrary emotive argument, modern social integrity relies completely upon the rule of law. That rule of law relies upon certain "gold standards" of belief, "all men are equal" being perhaps the most important (in this context). Without that standard, the laws themselves would become more or less meaningless.
Hence the fear of confronting or engaging in a true examination of those beliefs.

Imagine how absolutely terrifying the social consequences of a final scientific discovery that all races are not equal would be upon those whose belief systems are inherently invested in that belief. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is not a scientific or researched position. It is one of faith.

You're wasting your time in this thread. Or, as it happens, pretty much anywhere, arguing for investigation into the truth of the matter.
It's a similar thing as arguing about religion - there is very little in the way of rational common ground.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you've said.

The point about Denisovans and Neanderthals is interesting, because up until very recently, it was a assumed that everyone was pure homo sapien, and that our species did not live together with the Neanderthals in the same place at the same time. In fact the scientific consensus was that they died out as soon as we arrived.

But then that was surpassed (in 2006) by the evidence that we lived together for about 5000 years. It was still asserted that we did not interbreed. Neanderthals were assumed to be dumber than modern humans.

Then Denisovans were discovered in 2010.

Recent genetic analysis says that all humans who migrated out of Africa have up to 5% Denisovan/Neanderthal DNA.

It is now believed that the cave paintings of Europe, like Lascaux, the most advanced of their time, were painted by Neanderthals as opposed to Sapiens, casting doubt on the assertion that Neanderthals were dumber.

The reality is that science is moving so fast that an assertion of a consensus is nonsense.
 
its free real estate said:
The reality is that science is moving so fast that an assertion of a consensus is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Aye.
The majority define both themselves and others within the context of their experience and knowledge. It's at the same time both strength and weakness.

All anyone needs to do is to check out the timeline of opinion regarding H. Erectus in the twentieth century to see the issue surrounding emotional attachment to scientific argument.
 
_Wildcard_ said:
Aye.
The majority define both themselves and others within the context of their experience and knowledge. It's at the same time both strength and weakness.

All anyone needs to do is to check out the timeline of opinion regarding H. Erectus in the twentieth century to see the issue surrounding emotional attachment to scientific argument.
Click to expand...

I think recent findings with Erectus have shown they were able to sail between islands and speak. Meaning that intelligent species of hominins have possibly been around for one million years, not the 100-200kpa assumed only 20 years ago
 
_Wildcard_ said:
The reason racism is decried as a modern evil is for the purposes of social cohesion.
Setting aside the arbitrary emotive argument, modern social integrity relies completely upon the rule of law. That rule of law relies upon certain "gold standards" of belief, "all men are equal" being perhaps the most important (in this context). Without that standard, the laws themselves would become more or less meaningless.
Hence the fear of confronting or engaging in a true examination of those beliefs.

Imagine how absolutely terrifying the social consequences of a final scientific discovery that all races are not equal would be upon those whose belief systems are inherently invested in that belief. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is not a scientific or researched position. It is one of faith.
Click to expand...

It's a quandary. I believe that hard science should trump religion in the rational world. But, as you say, suppose hard science proved racial superiorities and inferiorities? I would say that, in this instance, 'social cohesion' would quite rightly need to trump science.

I believe in universal human rights. If this comes at the expense of hard science in some way, so be it.
 
This is such a peripheral issue that's turned into an ideological war from the extremities of both left and right. If someone wants to change genders it's their business. It really isn't a big deal, and will almost certainly have no impact on anyone's life unless it's you or someone in your family who is going through the process of changing genders and you'd be about 1 in 1000 chance of going through that if it was you who was changing gender. And if you were going through that then you'd need compassion as suicide rates among transgender people is off he charts.

FWIW, the extreme right and religious zealots are far more destructive on this topic because they will be potentially pushing people over the edge.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rowan Dean on PML says Scott Morrison can win the election by talking about school transgender issues..........fmd.

He also said there will eventually be a Royal Commission into kids being forced into transgenderism.

How is this moron not laughed out of the building everywhere he goes?
 
Showbags said:
Rowan Dean on PML says Scott Morrison can win the election by talking about school transgender issues..........fmd.

He also said there will eventually be a Royal Commission into kids being forced into transgenderism.

How is this moron not laughed out of the building everywhere he goes?
Click to expand...

Ironically I agree with Rowan Dean, although I'm concerned that Scott Morrison can actually win the election on those grounds than the issue itself. Bigotry has helped right wing conservative government in Australia most notably since 2001, and there's many instances around the world, most obvious examples are Trump in the US and him demonizing Mexicans, Brexit in the UK, and then there's Duterte' demonizing people who use drugs.

It's not out of the realms and I'd say it's Scott Morrison's best bet. It doesn't matter that the issue itself is peripheral but to those that it does affect could/will cause catastrophic outcomes for people and their families who are affected.
 
TheSierBear said:
FWIW, the extreme right and religious zealots are far more destructive on this topic because they will be potentially pushing people over the edge.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right


The prison service has apologised after a transgender inmate, charged with raping a woman, sexually assaulted four fellow inmates just days after being remanded into an all female jail.

Convicted paedophile Karen White, who was born Stephen Wood, was undergoing gender reassignment, but had not undergone full surgery, when she was accused of repeatedly raping a woman in 2016.

The 52-year-old, who had been previously been jailed in 2001 for a sex attack on a child, told the authorities she identified as a woman and was remanded into HMP New Hall near Wakefield, West Yorkshire.​

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...accused-rape-remanded-female-prison-sexually/
 
its free real estate said:
Yeah, right


The prison service has apologised after a transgender inmate, charged with raping a woman, sexually assaulted four fellow inmates just days after being remanded into an all female jail.

Convicted paedophile Karen White, who was born Stephen Wood, was undergoing gender reassignment, but had not undergone full surgery, when she was accused of repeatedly raping a woman in 2016.

The 52-year-old, who had been previously been jailed in 2001 for a sex attack on a child, told the authorities she identified as a woman and was remanded into HMP New Hall near Wakefield, West Yorkshire.​

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...accused-rape-remanded-female-prison-sexually/
Click to expand...
What point are you trying to make here? Trans people can also be criminal and housing them within the justice system can be problematic.
 
Gough said:
What point are you trying to make here? Trans people can also be criminal and housing them within the justice system can be problematic.
Click to expand...
That we keep biological males and females separated because of the explicit threat the former poses to the latter. More:

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.

What’s more, two thirds of all sexual attacks at leisure centres and public swimming pools take place in unisex changing rooms.​

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...g-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

In what way is it good to put 50% of the population at risk in the interests of 0.1% of the population?
 
its free real estate said:
Are you ignoring that 90% of complaints about changing room sexual assaults happen in unisex facilities?

We have sex separation provisions for a reason.
Click to expand...

Oh, that. Why not have a supervised counter like in a department store change room (think K-mart, Myer, etc) where you get a key, go to your own lockable cubicle, get changed, supervise your child, etc and leave in complete safety after turning your key back in at the desk?

That could work.
 
Geelong_Sicko said:
Oh, that. Why not have a supervised counter like in a department store change room (think K-mart, Myer, etc) where you get a key, go to your own lockable cubicle, get changed, supervise your child, etc and leave in complete safety after turning your key back in at the desk?

That could work.
Click to expand...
You don't manage money, do you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sherb
Launceston Newspaper Gets Caught Publishing Letter About Non-Existent Transgender Incident
Replies
7
Views
794
schneebly111
S

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top