Some more ridiculous "Brain Sex" argument

submitted by Kai_Decadence from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thank you so much for your incite! As I mentioned before, I'm not the most technical person when it comes to science, I'm not particularly skilled and versed in the terminology and I can sometimes get distracted by the wording but that was the thing that was always in my head when it came to the "Brains sex" crap. If it's really true than why don't they ever use it as a mandatory thing for screening during the "Gender therapy"? Surely you'd want this kinda thing to confirm and make sure you're making the right decision to "transition" no? And plus if I remember correctly, the main study they used was the one done on 6 post-mortem trans-identified men and I heard that using 6 people does not count as a experiment. Never mind the fact that these men were dead and who's to say that their brain structures weren't chemically altered? What did their brains look like before they started ingesting hormones and what about the possibility of other things like developmental disorders or mental disorders and whatnot?

And I'll definitely get to your friend request soon! I've been so busy offline that I didn't have much time to check my Twitter this week haha.

[–]endless_assfluff 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lol, yep. Dubious correlations pop up all the time with a cohort of 6, especially if the goal is to hunt for similarities rather than to prove those similarities actually mean something. Funny thing, it also goes in the opposite direction if we're talking experiments and not people: one time a bio lab ran 24 trials of an experiment that normally gets repeated only 5 or 6 times, and another lab accused them (BRUTAL nerd drama) of running more and more trials because the initial 6 didn't give them the P-values they wanted.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's insane lol But not surprising unfortunately.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it helps, you're doing a good job trying to maintain a strong level of of impartiality and making sure to apply logical and critical analysis. Aside from the morally grey people, there're people who shouldn't be a scientist and scientists in general are also not immune to bias of any type. They are still people, just getting a degree in science means they're less likely to make mistakes when coming up with conclusions (maybe in the older days, I think the bench mark to become a scientist has sank today). This is why no matter if you're a scientist or not, you got to keep questioning. I follow a principle of "don't let people put you in your place just because you're not trained in the field or share the same experience (even life experience) and don't let arrogance cloud your views" and "if people want to be offended, that's on them". I tend to judge people by how they react to basic questions. If they answer, it's great, if they react as if they're arrogant or feel you're attacking them when it's quite clear you're not trying to offend anyone, better remember they're not worthwhile to have intellectual conversations.