Please debunk this TRA article

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

[deleted]

all 2 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All utterly irrelevant. The trans phenomenon by the definition those who espouse it is a PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENON not one based in the complex biology related to conception. An intersex person isn't a 'trans' person. When doctors decide whether a person is trans or not they do not examine the vagaries of their biology they examine their psychological disposition.

No one is claiming that the phenomenon you cite is responsible for the trans phenomenon.

therefore "sperm and egg, male and female, are socially constructed, illusory categories made up by humans"

Utter fucking nonsense.

It makes sense that the differences between sperm and egg, male and female, should be universal and apply to all species.

No it doesn't.

Exceptions disprove a rule,

Not a general rule but a universal one. No one claims there aren't anomalous people who biologically for example have an unusual chromosomal makeup or are intersex or hermaphroditic. This also has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSGENDERISM. Transgenderism is a PYSCHOLOGICAL phenomenon according to those who espouse it as truth.

If, for instance, there were no universal differences between "living" and "nonliving", and there were exceptions, the conclusion would be the categories of "living" and "nonliving" are illusory and don't exist outside the human mind.

Utter nonsense. The equivalent of saying that because there is various states many animals can enter which resemble death and could be called transitory states between life and death therefore there's no distinctions between the two. In other words a pathetic continuum fallacy.

Several researchers have convincingly demonstrated that there are no universal differences between diploid females and males (Fausto-Sterling, 1985)

How sad do you have to be to make this argument? Who makes the argument that there are UNIVERSAL rather than general differences between biological men and women? Name me one person in the history of mankind who actually says that?

The more organisms that we examine, the more we are convinced of the arbitrariness of how humans have classified and designated the two sexes, female and male

Sounds like a super SCIENTIFIC™ conclusion there. God I love science.

I'm not a biologist but I have a brain and common sense. Nothing here has anything to do with the trans phenomenon. Nothing here is based on anything other than a motivated reading of biology to suit a social/political agenda.

It's all so tiresome.

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

Decided to search up the primary author, Prof Root Gorelick of that peice, the other two vulva-owners I think are his students. his profile:

While philosophy is typically eschewed in science, our work has shown merit in considering Indigenous sciences, pluriversality [this is a term from decolonial theory basically non-european "universial"], and why academic freedom should welcome Indigenous views (in general) and queer views on sex. Our finding that sex delineates individuals helps interject philosophy into biology.

So obvious much of his work is for political beliefs, like Lewontin.

I can't find much info on him, but this response details some of his political activism

This incident reflects Root Gorelick’s article in the January SAFS Newsletter, touting the teaching of “Indigenous sciences,” and Carleton University’s rejection of his proposal to teach a course in “Indigenous perspectives[,] ecology and evolution” as a science course. As part of his rationale for the course, Gorelick says he could have “injected bits of Indigenous ways of knowing into routinely offered biology courses,” but he wanted to initiate a “standalone biology course in this subject.” In other words, he proposed to present indigenous perspectives, “ways of knowing,” and other unverifiable beliefs as legitimate science. Surely indigenous knowledge (or traditional knowledge as it is often referred to), should be examined in the context of reason and critical thought—but Gorelick wants to teach it outside the discipline of the scientific method; thereby, it seems, avoiding the burden of scrutiny.

some more

Finally, Dr. Gorelick’s interpretation of academic freedom as the freedom to misrepresent fact, to present cultural mythology as alternate truth, and to pretend that opposing views can both be correct, would, if instituted, result in a setback for scientific education. It was a sound decision by Carleton academic authorities to reject Dr. Gorelick’s reactionary initiative. “There were serious concerns about creating a precedent for ‘Science’ courses based on mythological and folklore traditions,” the official report stated. Indeed.

Though atleast he is against code of conducts