you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TheOnyxGoddess[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They seem to be under the impression that just because they studied and passed higher level biology, their delusions are valid and biology teaches transgender exists. I'm willing to bet that's their interpretation and not something their course actually taught, though with what is going on today, I'm not surprised if a few courses actually state outright transgenders exist but even if they did, they wouldn't exactly structure their tests to mainly focus on a relatively new field if even at all.

[–]lefterfield 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Really, it's a form of appeal to authority logical fallacy. This university told them they know enough about biology to pass some tests, so therefore nothing they say on the subject of biology could be wrong. If anything, it's an indictment of the university - both for allowing them to pass courses while having fundamental misunderstandings of basic concepts, and for not teaching them logical thinking.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Definitely. Out of curiosity, will it be relevant if I post a recent study here relating to TI and normal people brains and we can all disassemble why such a study is so stupid? Because society has been conditioned to believe research that supports the TI narrative (especially existing research which provides raw data on differences between the brains of the normal people and gender deluded), but most people don't really know what good research looks like nor are most able to interpret it as some of it's lexicon are outside of generalised education (e.g. descriptive statistics). I think a discussion about a recent research which supports the TI narrative helps keep everyone up to date about what TRAs are arguing and how they're basing their arguments. Alternatively I'm thinking about just starting a blog (under a different name) and just posting it there and pointing out a couple of things of the research and how the studies do not separate gender stereotypes from biology and instead just assume that "female identities" and "male identities" are entities merged with the person's physiology and not simply abstract concepts. To counteract this lunacy we need to counter it from so many perspectives (e.g. biological, psychological, sociological).

[–]lefterfield 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think that'd be a great blog and/or study to read about. I say go for it.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was asking if it was a good idea to post TI supporting study (its purpose is to support TIs) and start a discussion about it (that is, scrutinise it so everyone is aware of the research they keep basing their delusions on and are probably going to start citing if they haven't done so already). I might start a blog, but I honestly think I don't have much to write about other than just talking about how the issues of research is that it's taking a perception of reality and merging it with biology (and I'm not even sure if I'm wording that right).

[–]lefterfield 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think so, but it's really not my decision.