[ExI] antiscience from both sides
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Mon May 11 06:51:04 UTC 2020
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:47 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> That you fail to assimilate the actual findings of gender/sex science
> seems to show are casting out science...
### No, actually I am quite well-versed in the science of gender, and
psychometry, and psychiatry, and that's precisely the reason why I call BS
on leftoids peddling their inane ideas.
> 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 BS.
> 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
### Absolutely to the contrary, there is a very strong biological basis to
the differences between men and women in STEM fields.
> That's the thing with facts, they don't go away even if you call them bad
> 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.)
### Look up the statistics on the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity
among trannnies. And don't tell me their sky-high rates of psychological
disturbance are due to us normal folks oppressing them, or something like
that. Yes, there are now malingerers pretending to be trannies in order to
run roughshod over women's sports or to get social kudos for being more
intersectional than the other, vanilla leftoids.
Let me be clear - It is not morally wrong to be a tranny. However, it does
suck, statistically speaking, to be a tranny.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat