Sex personality differences

[theprestige]

Unless the vast majority of people that identify as transgender* have the mental characteristics associated with their target gender*, I don't see how this study provides any scientific support for transgenderism.

 

[Delvo]

I don't see how this study provides any scientific support for transgenderism.

"Scientific support" for a description that some people give for how they feel?

Are there any other descriptions of human feelings/experiences which you require "scientific support" for?

 

[theprestige]

"Scientific support" for a description that some people give for how they feel?

Are there any other descriptions of human feelings/experiences which you require "scientific support" for?

A few, but most of them already have scientific support. The important thing is that I require scientific support for the the claims being discussed:

- that this feeling has scientific support.

- that this feeling describes a physical reality of some kind.

- that this feeling engenders certain rights and requires certain accommodations in public policy.

If it's just a feeling, with no need for scientific support, then I don't see why we need to take it any more seriously than god-bothering, or furryism. Which is to say, give it the same basic courtesy of "go along to get along" that we give those other feelings.

In fact, if it's just a feeling with no underlying science, then I think the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion tells us exactly how to handle it in public policy: We're free to believe whatever we want. We're free to speak about our beliefs. We're free to associate with others who share our beliefs. We're free from others being entitled to impose their beliefs on us.

 

[Delvo]

A few, but most of them already have scientific support.

Feelings have scientific support? What does that even mean?

I require scientific support for the the claims being discussed:

- that this feeling has scientific support.

Scientific support for the claim that a feeling has scientific support? Holy wow, what does even meaning mean?

- that this feeling engenders certain rights and requires certain accommodations in public policy.

Such as ___

If it's just a feeling, with no need for scientific support, then I don't see why we need to take it any more seriously than god-bothering, or furryism. Which is to say, give it the same basic courtesy of "go along to get along" that we give those other feelings.

In fact, if it's just a feeling with no underlying science, then I think the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion tells us exactly how to handle it in public policy: We're free to believe whatever we want. We're free to speak about our beliefs. We're free to associate with others who share our beliefs. We're free from others being entitled to impose their beliefs on us.

What else is anybody calling for but that?

 

[theprestige]

Feelings have scientific support? What does that even mean?

Schizophrenia. Delusions of grandeur. Depression. Body integrity identity disorder. There is scientific support for the idea that each of these is a real neurodivergence from the norm. That they are conditions that can be measured and should be treated, and that the efficacy of the treatment can also be measured.

Put it another way: If I report certain feelings, there's a rational basis for the medical community to say, "the feelings you're reporting indicate a mental condition that is known to science, and that calls for scientific treatment." There's also a rational basis for the medical community to say, "you're reporting feelings consistent with a scientifically-supported mental condition, but you lack certain other measurable hallmarks of that condition, so we have a scientific basis to believe you are misreporting your feelings."

Scientific support for the claim that a feeling has scientific support? Holy wow, what does even meaning mean?

This one is pretty simple: If you say your claim has scientific support, I expect you to be willing and able to produce scientific support for your claim.

Even if I don't think the claim itself requires scientific support, if you say it has that, I think you should be able to show it on demand.

Such as ___

The right of access to cross-gender safe spaces. The right of access to cross-gender sports leagues. The right of entitlement to cross-gender medical staff. The right of entitlement to fulfill cross-gender representational goals.

What else is anybody calling for but that?

See above.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There are some interesting wrinkles in the science of neurology, for instance female rats (and mice) have often been excluded from studies because it was thought they would be more variable because they were female and their reproductive cycle.

However, it is interesting to find that despite the distinct physiological differences in their bodies, in terms of neurology they are no more variable than the variability we see within the male population of rats. (https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-016-0087-5)

As an additional talking point, females have often been excluded from clinical trials in medicine because of concerns that hormone cycles will affect the outcomes. The result of this has been that a great many treatments affect females differently than males do, and have different side effects in females. And those side effects are unknown when the treatment gets FDA approval, and have at times been pretty serious.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here is what he says:


So if he is critiquing this view then he must be saying that male and female brains don't start out identical.

I think your emphasis in that statement is misplaced. Re-read it with the emphasis here:

Evolutionary explanations for human behavior challenge their a priori commitment to “Blank Slate” psychology—the belief that male and female brains in humans start out identical and that all behavior, sex-linked or otherwise, is entirely the result of differences in socialization.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What else is anybody calling for but that?

A fair bit of proposed and in-force legislation is calling for that feeling to be held as more important and more valid than the actuality of biological sex. This results in things like feelings overriding sex-segregation in sport, domestic violence and rape shelters, and prisons, for starters.

So far as I can tell, it goes well beyond "the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion tells us exactly how to handle it in public policy: We're free to believe whatever we want. We're free to speak about our beliefs. We're free to associate with others who share our beliefs. We're free from others being entitled to impose their beliefs on us."

It gets directly into allowing some people's feelings to grant them license to impose their beliefs on others.