More proof that enviromentalism is morphing into a nihilistic death cult.

biko

I'm all for climate activists sterilising themselves.

Pa ElGrande

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Human extinction is the logical conclusion of the Green ideology. They need negative economic growth (ie a recession) to get their cherished carbon reductions. A 100% carbon reduction from humans ( ie human extinction) is just the logical outcome when we follow the reasoning that the planet is more important than anything else, including human life, standard of living and civilization.

They are certainly an element of the movement. The neo-malthusians of the late 1960s and 1970s emerge as the post world war II economic boom collapses, oil shocks ricochet around the world, and crisis dominates politics. That's the era in which The Limits to Growth computer simulation emerges.


Prior to world war II there was also the eugenics movement which continued up until the 1970s in Canada and the Nordic countries. The idea was taken from the United States and used by the Nazis as a scientific solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwj4jMnWZg

Climate worriers are keen to emphasise the scientific facts underpinning their outlook, but the historical context of their movement is far more revealing to understanding it.

Snickers Man

Is she in a Marilyn Manson tribute act?

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

They are certainly an element of the movement. The neo-malthusians of the late 1960s and 1970s emerge as the post world war II economic boom collapses, oil shocks ricochet around the world, and crisis dominates politics. That's the era in which The Limits to Growth computer simulation emerges.


Prior to world war II there was also the eugenics movement which continued up until the 1970s in Canada and the Nordic countries. The idea was taken from the United States and used by the Nazis as a scientific solution.

Climate worriers are keen to emphasise the scientific facts underpinning their outlook, but the historical context of their movement is far more revealing to understanding it.

In another thread this ^^ same poster is arguing that human extinction would not be an unacceptable outcome of climate change.

_Kaiser_

alastair wrote: »

That’s not journalism - it’s an op-ed piece by an intentionally anti-science advocate.

Slightly O/T but it's the first thing that occurred to me reading this post.

What's funny about these trendy crusades is the pick and mix nature of them. Here anyone who questions the "climate emergency" is anti-science, or a denier etc. All the experts say we're on a collision course with DOOOOOM, look at the SCIENCE etc.

Whereas on a topic like say gender identity, the science is dismissed by the same type of people in favour of feelings and opinion. Point out some biological facts and the pitchforks come out.

The overriding common theme through all of them though is the "you're with us or you're against us!" attitude. Everything is black or white (I've no doubt "triggered" someone now too!), no middle ground, no room for open and honest debate, no willingness to reconsider their position.

Ultimately it's self-defeating too, as those who are not part of the crusade switch off to the message (even if it's valid). Most people don't like being labelled or pigeon-holed, or having their intelligence and conscience questioned by those who generally come across as extremists.

Anyway, carry on!

alastair

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Slightly O/T but it's the first thing that occurred to me reading this post.

What's funny about these trendy crusades is the pick and mix nature of them. Here anyone who questions the "climate emergency" is anti-science, or a denier etc. All the experts say we're on a collision course with DOOOOOM, look at the SCIENCE etc.

Whereas on a topic like say gender identity, the science is dismissed by the same type of people in favour of feelings and opinion. Point out some biological facts and the pitchforks come out.

The overriding common theme through all of them though is the "you're with us or you're against us!" attitude. Everything is black or white (I've no doubt "triggered" someone now too!), no middle ground, no room for open and honest debate, no willingness to reconsider their position.

Ultimately it's self-defeating too, as those who are not part of the crusade switch off to the message (even if it's valid). Most people don't like being labelled or pigeon-holed, or having their intelligence and conscience questioned by those who generally come across as extremists.

Anyway, carry on!

The science on gender identity is actually pretty clear that the notion of binary gender is incorrect.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

Soo - you seem disinclined to accept the science on both matters. Your choice - but anti-scientific nonetheless.

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

The science on gender identity is actually pretty clear that the notion of binary gender is incorrect.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

Soo - you seem disinclined to accept the science on both matters. Your choice - but anti-scientific nonetheless.

I don't understand how the first article comes to the conclusion that gender identiy is non-binary. It talks about tran-sexuals, but tran-sexuals live within the binary in that they believe (or are) a man or woman born into the body of a woman or man.

The article then states that:

Transgender women tend to have brain structures that resemble cisgender women, rather than cisgender men. Two sexually dimorphic (differing between men and women) areas of the brain are often compared between men and women. The bed nucleus of the stria terminalus (BSTc) and sexually dimorphic nucleus of transgender women are more similar to those of cisgender woman than to those of cisgender men, suggesting that the general brain structure of these women is in keeping with their gender identity.

which is quite literally an argument against what the authors are proposing.

The article ends by stating

The transgender identity is multi-dimensional – but it deserves no less recognition or respect than any other facet of humankind.

having given absolutely no evidence that this is the case in the article. All the article has done is shown that transgenderism is not a "choice", something I'd agree with. There is no argment given at all for gender not being binary however, in the sense that there are multitudes of 2.

Also, the real science denying that happens with this issue is the idea that sex is non-binary, and that somebody born biological male is in fact female (they are not) because they feel that they are.

As for the second article, around 1% of people have chromosomes that are neither one of XX and XY. To suggest that there is no sex binary when 99% exist within that binary is absurd.
Some of the links in the article link to studies that have dubious conclusions such as this one:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0018506X07001638?via%3Dihub Firstly there are only 49 tests subjects and suggests that heightened estradiol is responsible for those woman who a preference for dominance over others, seemingly without taking into other considerations. Has this result been replicated also i.e. why wasns't this experiment carried out numerous times before this conclusion being reached. It seems like shobby "science" and the old adage of correlation doesn't equal causation comes to mind.

The whole Paragraph entitled "THE BODY AND THE BRAIN AND THE HORMONES BETWIXT (sic)" is such rubbish it's hard to know where to even begin tbh. Some of the links don't work also.

The article concludes by stating that sex is non-binary when it gives very liitle evidence of that being the case.

SporadicMan

I agree but I think it should be limited to white people.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

which is quite literally an argument against what the authors are proposing.

It’s entirely supportive of their position! ����*♂️

And the second article makes clear that the biological influencers on gender identity are multiple, and result in a spectrum, rather than binary outcomes. The evidence for this is listed in the article.

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

It’s entirely supportive of their position! 🤷🏻*♂️

And the article makes clear that the biological influencers on gender identity are multiple, and result in a spectrum, rather than binary outcomes. The evidence for this is listed in the article.

How does showing that trans men or women have brians similar to the sex they identify as show there is not a gender binary?

If the article wants to show that gender is non-binary that trans-people are the worst examples they could use. Trans-people exist within the binary. Thats the whole point of being trans! A non-binary trans-person makes no sense.

And regardless, the real psedo science lies in the idea that sex in humans is non-binary. It absolutely is. If you want to suggest that gender is non-binary then off you go. Sex, however, is.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

How does showing that trans men or women have brians similar to the sex they identify as show there is not a gender binary?

If the article wants to show that gender is non-binary that trans-people are the worst examples they could use. Trans-people exist within the binary. Thats the whole point of being trans! A non-binary trans-person makes no sense.

And regardless, the real psedo science lies in the idea that sex in humans is non-binary. It absolutely is. If you want to suggest that gender is non-binary then off you go. Sex, however, is.

Though the typical assigned sexes are “male” and “female,” often designated at birth, being transgender does not limit gender identity to these two categories, as many who identify as transgender do not feel they are exclusively masculine or feminine. Importantly, transgender identity is independent of sexual orientation.

Perhaps if you read the article with a little more attention to detail? The brain study examples mentioned were predicated by specific gender identification. The biological process referenced was clear that it wasn’t a binary one, but a variable in signal strength.

If sex is binary, then how do you account for intersex people?

https://massivesci.com/articles/sex-gender-intersex-transgender-identity-discrimination-title-ix/

suicide_circus

Isn't intersex a bit if a banana skin for the trans argument? Intersex people have actual observable physical and chromosomal evidence of their condition.

dubdaymo

mariaalice wrote: »

I would put an each-way bet for extream environmentalists to become the next terrorist group.

You have already won your bet. Look what they did to Australia including murder.

dwmcdos

This gender debate is making me want to agree with her...

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

Isn't intersex a bit if a banana skin for the trans argument? Intersex people have actual observable physical and chromosomal evidence of their condition.

Why would it be any banana skin? Does the existence of every other difference in the world undermine any other difference? The science proves that gender is not always locked to assigned sex, and the science also proves that sex isn’t always binary. Walking and chewing gum at the same time.

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

Perhaps if you read the article with a little more attention to detail? The brain study examples mentioned were predicated by specific gender identification. The biological process referenced was clear that it wasn’t a binary one, but a variable in signal strength.

If sex is binary, then how do you account for intersex people?

https://massivesci.com/articles/sex-gender-intersex-transgender-identity-discrimination-title-ix/

No, the biological process is nothing more than hypothesis. It is absolutely not clear. The article doesn't say what you think it does, it doesn't prove anything.

They represent ~1% of people. 99% of people exist within the binary.

alastair

dubdaymo wrote: »

You have already won your bet. Look what they did to Australia including murder.

Yeah - the cheek of them! Bumping up those temperatures over decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okmjuh0pNCU

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

Why would it be any banana skin? Does the existence of every other difference in the world undermine any other difference? The science proves that gender is not always locked to assigned sex, and the science also proves that sex isn’t always binary. Walking and chewing gum at the same time.

No it doesn't prove this. You are simply wrong.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, the biological process is nothing more than hypothesis. It is absolutely not clear. The article doesn't say what you think it does, it doesn't prove anything.

They represent ~1% of people. 99% of people exist within the binary.

A hypothesis based on scientific observation (just as gravity is):
https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)30695-0/pdf

The ratios aren’t really the point - if you have any more than two options, you’re not operating in a binary context.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it doesn't prove this. You are simply wrong.

It certainly does. How does intersex fit into a binary sex claim?

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

A hypothesis based on scientific observation (just as gravity is):
https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)30695-0/pdf

The ratios aren’t really the point - if you have any more than two options, you’re not operating in a binary context.

That paper suggests the reason why someone is trans. It doesn't conclude that sex or gender is non-binary. Again, trans-person exists within the gender binary, that is the whole point!

And ofcourse the ratio's are important. Science, and particularly Biology, don't deal in exacts. Are exactly 100% of people within the group of XX or XY? No. But 99% of them are. As such the binary exists. To suggest there is no binary because ~1% of the population are outside of it is pedantic in the extreme and conflates to separate issues anyhow.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

That paper suggests the reason why someone is trans. It doesn't conclude that sex or gender is non-binary. Again, trans-person exists within the gender binary, that is the whole point!

And ofcourse the ratio's are important. Science, and particularly Biology, don't deal in exacts. Are exactly 100% of people within the group of XX or XY? No. But 99% of them are. As such the binary exists. To suggest there is no binary because ~1% of the population are outside of it is pedantic in the extreme and conflates to separate issues anyhow.

1. The article addresses your first argument - which was about gender, not sex.
2. Trans doesn’t mean what you think it does. Every point of the spectrum of gender identification is encapsulated in the idea of trans. Just as every point along any other trans (across) concept is as intrinsic as it’s extremities.
3. If you’ve more than two of anything, it’s not a binary scenario. Irrespective of ratios. That’s far from pedantic.

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

1. The article addresses your first argument - which was about gender, not sex.

It doesn't. And secondly your second article delt with sex and not gender.

alastair wrote: »

2. Trans doesn’t mean what you think it does. Every point of the spectrum of gender identification is encapsulated in the idea of trans. Just as every point along any other trans (across) concept is as intrinsic as it’s extremities.

Complete word salad.

3. If you’ve more than two of anything, it’s not a binary scenario. Irrespective of ratios. That’s far from pedantic.[/QUOTE]

It's is pendantic. The binary concept of sex has been around for a long time and for a reason, because it is true of ~99% of the human population. When 99% of something belong to two groups, you can consider it a binary, unless of course you are a pedant.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It doesn't. And secondly your second article delt with sex and not gender.

It does. And yes - but you were not referring to that where my response related to. Two separate issues.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Complete word salad.

Sorry you’re struggling. Trans is about every point on a spectrum/journey - not merely the extremities. This applies to every application of ‘trans’.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It's is pendantic. The binary concept of sex has been around for a long time and for a reason, because it is true of ~99% of the human population. When 99% of something belong to two groups, you can consider it a binary, unless of course you are a pedant.

You can consider it whatever you fancy, but it’s not actually binary. You don’t get to make up your own facts. It’s demonstrably not.

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

It does. And yes - but you were not referring to that where my response related to. Two separate issues.

So why post it as proof that gender is non-binary?

alastair wrote: »

Sorry you’re struggling. Trans is about every point on a spectrum/journey - not merely the extremities. This applies to every application of ‘trans’.

Nope, still have no idea what you mean by this. Again, trans and non-binary people are separate issues. You are confusing the two.

alastair wrote: »

You can consider it whatever you fancy, but it’s not actually binary. You don’t get to make up your own facts. It’s demonstrably not.

It's considered binary by the majority of people and for a reason. Again, you've to be pendantic in the extreme to say it's not binary. This isn't maths. You throw out the term to accomodate ~1% of the population most of whom aren't trans themselves.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So why post it as proof that gender is non-binary?

It provides one set of proof that gender is non binary. It says nothing about sex.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Nope, still have no idea what you mean by this. Again, trans and non-binary people are separate issues. You are confusing the two.

I’m not confused at all. But clearly you are. All non-binary people are either trans or intersex.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It's considered binary by the majority of people and for a reason. Again, you've to be pendantic in the extreme to say it's not binary. This isn't maths. You throw out the term to accomodate ~1% of the population most of whom aren't trans themselves.

The reason it’s not binary is because there’s more than two possibilities. It doesn’t really matter how un-used to that reality you are - it still exists.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

It provides one set of proof that gender is non binary. It says nothing about sex.

The article consistently talks about sex, not gender.

The popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.

This btw is an absurdity. You cannot change your biological sex no matter what some activists want us to believe.

Because biological sex is far more complicated than XX or XY

SRY, DMRT1, and FOXL2 aren’t directly involved with other aspects of biological sex.

Trying to link sex, sex chromosomes and sexual dimorphism is also useless for understanding other brain properties.

...the idea of a sexual binary...

another biological factor influences the expression of biological sex in an individual: hormones

the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.

Which is true, but again nothing to do with gender.

etc. etc. The article is dealing with sex, not gender.

alastair wrote: »

I’m not confused at all. But clearly you are. All non-binary people are either trans or intersex.

They aren't. Non-binary refers to gender, not sex. The majority of Trans-people along with non-binary people will be one of the 2 sexes male or female whether they like it or not.

alastair wrote: »

The reason it’s not binary is because there’s more than two possibilities. It doesn’t really matter how un-used to that reality you are - it still exists.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

Even more recently, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Nature, published an editorial claiming that classifying people’s sex “on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned” and “has no basis in science” and that “the research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female.” In the Nature article, the motive is stated clearly enough: acknowledging the reality of biological sex will “undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.” But while there is evidence for the fluidity of sex in many organisms, this is simply not the case in humans. We can acknowledge the existence of very rare cases in humans where sex is ambiguous, but this does not negate the reality that sex in humans is functionally binary. These editorials are nothing more than a form of politically motivated, scientific sophistry.

The formula for each of these articles is straightforward. First, they list a multitude of intersex conditions. Second, they detail the genes, hormones, and complex developmental processes leading to these conditions. And, third and finally, they throw their hands up and insist this complexity means scientists have no clue what sex really is. This is all highly misleading and deceiving (self-deceiving?), since the developmental processes involved in creating any organ are enormously complex, yet almost always produce fully functional end products. Making a hand is complicated too, but the vast majority of us end up with the functional, five-fingered variety.

What these articles leave out is the fact that the final result of sex development in humans are unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. Thus, the claim that “2 sexes is overly simplistic” is misleading, because intersex conditions correspond to less than 0.02 percent of all births, and intersex people are not a third sex. Intersex is simply a catch-all category for sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex genotype and phenotype, regardless of its etiology.

Furthermore, the claim that “sex is a spectrum” is also misleading, as a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time. Lastly, the claim that classifying people’s sex based on anatomy and genetics “has no basis in science” has itself no basis in reality, as any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that.

https://quillette.com/2018/11/30/the-new-evolution-deniers/

alastair

1. You’re referencing the wrong article. Once again - one deals with gender, one with sex.
2. Who suggested you could change your biological sex? The point is that biological sex is not binary.
3. You’re still confused. No, non-binary people are not necessarily “one of the 2 sexes male or female whether they like it or not“. Intersex people are also non-binary.
4. Op-ed piece from a non-peer reviewed right-wing journal is not particularly convincing on any scientific front. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

1. You’re referencing the wrong article. Once again - one deals with gender, one with sex.

Yes, and you were responding to the poster in question who talked about gender, specifically gender-identity, not sex.

alastair wrote: »

2. Who suggested you could change your biological sex? The point is that biological sex is not binary.

The popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.

It's literally in the article you posted. So the people who wrote the article are claiming it, and I guessed since you posted the arument as evidence that sex is non-binary, you agree with this assertion.

alastair wrote: »

3. You’re still confused. No non-binary people are “one of the 2 sexes male or female whether they like it or not“. ��

Yes, they are. You are confused and conflating sex and gender which nowadays are not the same thing and cannot seemingly be used interchangeably.

alastair wrote: »

4. Op-ed piece from a non-peer reviewed right-wing journal is not particularly convincing on any scientific front. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/

The author is "Colin Wright has a PhD in evolutionary biology from UC Santa Barbara. He currently studies the social behavior of ant, wasp, and spider societies at Penn State." It's not some nobody.

Try dealing with his points as opposed to lazily dismissing them because of the outlet he has written in.

alastair

1. Yes. I responded to a question of gender, with an article that related to gender.
2.

The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.

Where does that say that you can change it? It doesn’t. I agree with the assertion - which is not what you suggested. Here’s what it does say:

How? Through a set of complex genetic signals that, in the course of a human’s development, begins with a small group of cells called the bipotential primordium and a gene called SRY.
A newly fertilized embryo initially develops without any indication of its sex. At around five weeks, a group of cells clump together to form the bipotential primordium. These cells are neither male nor female but have the potential to turn into testes, ovaries or neither. After the primordium forms, SRY—a gene on the Y chromosome discovered in 1990, thanks to the participation of intersex XX males and XY females—might be activated.*

3. Nope. It’s still you who’s confused. I’m quite clear on the distinction between sex and gender, just as I’m quite clear that non-binary can cover both.
4. It’s an op-ed piece in a non peer-reviewed right wing journal. It’s not pretending to be a scientific article. So don’t present it as one.