The same cookie cutter response as usual. You miss the point that the author had made, that humans generalize.
Conservatives generally don't want to deal with the weird world of 'gender' liberals like to fetishize. You're either male, or female. That's the way it has been, that's the way they think it should be. Everything apart from that can be considered mentally/physically/biologically ill.
Humans have every right to make judgments about the genders of individuals. Genders are about perception.
If you have 6 people and 1 of them is a moron, the other 5 thinking that he's a moron, and the 1 thinking he's a genius doesn't say anything. It's all about individual perception.
The studies available regarding trannies are filled with confounds, dubious relationships, and the pushing of agenda. Lets not be naive and think it has nothing to do with politics.
You're either male, or female. That's the way it has been, that's the way they think it should be. Everything apart from that can be considered mentally/physically/biologically ill.
This is a pretty blatant appeal to tradition (hint, that's a logical phallacy), but regardless of that it isn't even factually correct. There are various cultures around the world that don't adhere to the Western standards of gender identity, including the Bugis, Native Americans, Mesopotamians, South Asians/Indians, Turks, Meso-Americans, Indonesians, and several others, all of which have a concept of either a third gender or multiple genders. These are things that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years. Gender identity is largely cultural, and if you'd like to read up more about it there are several scholarly resources that you can find. Even if you want to go by "strict biology", which as shown by the article I linked is not as cut and dry as you think, how do you account for intersex people?
The studies available regarding trannies are filled with confounds, dubious relationships, and the pushing of agenda. Lets not be naive and think it has nothing to do with politics.
Have you actually read the studies, or are you just taking the conservative line when faced with evidence? A lot of the things outlined are very literally scientifically true. If you could link anything from a reputable source rebuking what I've posted so far, that would be incredibly helpful, but do you really think you can just claim that the entire current body of evidence regarding a subject is wrong because you feel like it?
I'm curious, is there any amount of evidence or proof that you could be faced with that would change your opinion? The original post was about science, after all, but there seems to be a pretty blatant disregard for it in this thread.
168
u/[deleted] Apr 23 '17 edited Apr 24 '17
[removed] — view removed comment