you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

You mean the News Statesmen is unscientific because it is not explicitly anti trans?

I thought they'd published gender critical people?

In fact they have, here's Sarah Ditum, https://www.newstatesman.com/writers/sarah_ditum

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No I dont mean that. I mean it’s unscientific because it’s a magazine that publishes pop psychology and editorials.

Science is not science because it agrees or disagrees with me. A magazine article is not science. A pop psychology theory with loads of valid criticism is not science. The opinions of people are not science.

How about a study that can be replicated and gets the same results every time?

Cute how you immediately assume I say it’s not science because it’s not a gc magazine. Shows a lot about your own lack of thinking with what you post here.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

Cute how you immediately assume I say it’s not science because it’s not a gc magazine.

Well yes. GC would view trans ideas as unscientific, no? A lot of the debate is about the science.

A magazine article is not science. A pop psychology theory with loads of valid criticism is not science. The opinions of people are not science.

Sure it's a political magazine reviewing a pop science book which I think is relevant to debates here.

How about a study that can be replicated and gets the same results every time?

We can't offer relevant reviews of relevant pop science books. It has to be science papers or nothing?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is unscientific. That’s not from a gc view, that’s from a point of common sense. A gender critical person speaking common sense is still not a scientist.

What makes the review of a book about unproven ideas relevant or science? Maybe discuss the book review without calling it science?

Pop science should have studies to back it up otherwise it’s just more pseudo intellectual garbage on a mountain of it. The fact that it’s a pop science book being reviewed by a political magazine should tip you off that it’s probably bullshit opinions.

Evolutionary psychology should have been your second tip that the “science” is bollocks.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

I'm happy to use science and refer to science papers. Some will be good and some will be bad.

Over all I don't think the scientific community supports the blank slate or absolute behavioural gender equality.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Science doesn’t support the idea of blank slates or absolute behavioural gender equality…Nobody does. You just told yourself we do despite being corrected by two seperate users itt.

If a study is bad, it’s also not science. You really need to understand that word better.

I don’t care what you think science supports. What you think science supports and what is actually accurate are entirely seperate.

You can keep posting book reviews if you hate facts so much, just don’t call it the science of whatever. Call it the opinions of whoever, since that’s what’s actually being discussed.