Science Supports Trans People - Here is why

Jerry Coyne penned a very insightful piece about what has happened with scientific papers, such as Nature and Science, and how they've been infected with an ideological spin.

Basically, journals such as Nature and Science accept the dimorphic nature of sex when it suits them, but they have no problem to occasionally provide a platform for the "everything is a spectrum"-nonsense.

Nor would this be the first time in history when prestigious academic journals were contaminated with ideology or some sort of social bias. Think of how homosexuality, for example, was widely considered a mental disorder.

At the time, people would have quoted papers on it. Now, we realise it was all bunkum to begin with.

Genetics and behavioural science and so on, is very vulnerable to that kind of social contagion.

I'm a good openminded progressive liberal, and I want to hear your reasons, but I will only accept reasons that comply with my existing perspective. Anything else is to be belittled, ignored or dismissed entirely, while returning to the original request for reasons and my reassertion of being openminded...

😂

Human beings are genetically dimorphic - with XX and XY.

There are deviations from this, such as Klinefelter's syndrome, where there is an additional X chromosome on otherwise biological males - but these are medical conditions and not gender identities.

Now, you're right to say that deviations can exist within genetics, but these are deviations within the dimorphic families of XX and XY. So you can have deviations and variations within XX and deviations and variations within XY, but the overarching dimorphic structure still remains.

None of the above has anything whatsoever to do with the social construction of how we subjectively feel about our gender identity.

If you are going down this path, you'd have to identify what gene codes for "non-binary" and what gene codes for specific identities, such as agender. You won't be able to identify those genes precisely because there is no objective basis to assume that a gene can code for specific identities.

Are you suggesting that there is a genetic basis to what clothes we would prefer to wear / how we express ourselves fashion-wise in relation to identity?

I don't accept the phraseology that people are born into the wrong body because it's the only body we could have been born into, by definition. You can dislike your body, but you can't say it's the wrong body. There's no choice involved here.

I'm not saying gender roles don't exist, they do. But these stereotypes are actually perpetuated by the trans- community because the stereotypes are lived out in full. Long hair, dresses, make-up etc. are all artificial stereotypes associated with gender roles / identity. It's surprising that this is being reinforced when we thought we were doing away with these gender roles and stereotypes to begin with.

But I take serious issue with your use of the word "spectrum".

A spectrum implies a serious degree of variation and range. To take a light-hearted example, if there was a wide range of cuisines at a local buffet, we could argue that there was a wide spectrum of variation. A rainbow has a wide and differentiated spectrum of wavelengths and the colours it produces.

But trans- occupies around 0.5% of the population against 99.5% of the population who do not identify as trans but just as men and women.

That range: 99.5% versus 0.5% cannot be called a "spectrum"; as it's tilted so heavily to one side.

To resurrect the rainbow analogy, imagine if 99.5% of the rainbow was purple and only 0.5% was yellow. Picture that. Would we call that a spectrum?

You can say that there's a spectrum within the 0.5%, and that may very well be true, but when you lump the 99.5% into the mix and call it a spectrum belies the meaning of the word spectrum ab initio.