[ExI] antiscience from both sides

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Tuesday, May 5, 2020, 12:00:17 AM PDT, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: 
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:50 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> I disagree with there being two 'healthy, adaptive genders.' That's sneaking in basically religious
>> morality with, of course, a pseudo-biological rationale, into these categories. Again, I ask you look
>> over the work of folks like Anne Fausto-Sterling and Cordelia Fine.
> 
> ### Do you have an insight into my motivations that I don't have? As I mentioned many times on
> this list in the last 25 years, I am an atheist, so please don't impute that I am "sneaking" and using
> a "pseudo-biological" approach.

Show Quoted Content
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:50 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> I disagree with there being two 'healthy, adaptive genders.' That's sneaking in basically religious
>> morality with, of course, a pseudo-biological rationale, into these categories. Again, I ask you look
>> over the work of folks like Anne Fausto-Sterling and Cordelia Fine.
> 
> ### Do you have an insight into my motivations that I don't have? As I mentioned many times on
> this list in the last 25 years, I am an atheist, so please don't impute that I am "sneaking" and using
> a "pseudo-biological" approach.

That you fail to assimilate the actual findings of gender/sex science seems to show are casting out science... An atheist, too, can fall for many of the ideas inculcated by a society dominated by religious moral views of sex, gender, and the like.

> Being gay or trans significantly interferes with one's ability to create and maintain stable, child-
> rearing families. This is a simple biological and statistical fact. Dismissing this fact as "religious
> morality with pseudo-biological rationale" doesn't make it go away.

It's not established in that way at all. For a long time and even now, institutional regimes -- in other words, laws and norms inside institutions -- do their best to promote cis only families. For instance, non-hetero parents are prevented from adopting or keeping children (and thus forming families with children). This is legal disruption of family formation and stability. (It also doesn't help when, for instance, parents ostracize a child who identifies as non-binary or non-hetero. Do you doubt this happens? Do you doubt it can disruptive to not only the family of origin but can disrupt the child's ability to bond with others?)

This is similar to how many so called learned men said women should go to college and pursue degrees, especially not in STEM fields, because of their biology: that their biology means they're less able to do the work, concentrate, be rational, etc. When, in fact, there's no biological basis for these claims and the empirical fact that less women were in these fields at the time had to do with institutional obstacles and cultural norms.

> That's the thing with facts, they don't go away even if you call them bad names.

Apparently calling trans people malingers or disturbed is okay though. Or do you have a factual basis that trans people are more likely to be malingerers or disturbed than cis people? (And I mean beyond social and legal stigmas that tend to make it harder for anyone not fitting social gender normals to get jobs and lead otherwise normal lives.)

>>> So, they say that a psychologically disturbed man or a malingering man may claim
>>> himself to be a woman and we, normal people, are obliged to respect his claims.
>> 
>> Personally knowing and working with many people who identify as trans, I can attest that they aren't malingerers. I'm wondering where you get that from.
> 
> ### As you quoted above, disturbed or malingering. I guess you met the disturbed ones. 

Show Quoted Content
>>> So, they say that a psychologically disturbed man or a malingering man may claim
>>> himself to be a woman and we, normal people, are obliged to respect his claims.
>> 
>> Personally knowing and working with many people who identify as trans, I can attest that they aren't malingerers. I'm wondering where you get that from.
> 
> ### As you quoted above, disturbed or malingering. I guess you met the disturbed ones. 

If they're disturbed, I haven't noticed. Of course, if you're going to define being trans as being disturbed, then you've achieved a victory (in your own mind) by definition.

Regards,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200505/54f36ae6/attachment-0001.htm>