Conservatives

95 readers

78 users here now

Pro-conservative discussions

Rules

Pro-conservative or crazy liberal post.
We are a discussion forum. No low effort, trolling comments.
Everyone is welcome to opine, but be civil.
Attack the topic, not the person
Report violations of the rules
Downvotes are disabled

founded 2 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-19

Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense (www.realityslaststand.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So I would agree with that 58%, because there's no option for "Yes, and intersex is irrelevant". It's honestly a terrible poll, most likely not written by a biologist. I wouldn't be surprised if that 13% put down "Prefer not to say" as a sort of "This is a bad poll" response.

I'll let the quoted scientist in the source of the poll respond.

“Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts,” he said.

“While we fully endorse efforts to create a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse people, this does not require denying biological sex.

“On the contrary, the rejection of biological sex seems to be based on a lack of knowledge about evolution and it champions species chauvinism, inasmuch as it imposes human identity notions on millions of other species.”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

i agree that poll is insufficiently specific, however, even if 100% of that 58% agreed with you, that would still not meet the criteria for scientific consensus, which is typically in the 90's. Show me a poll that indicates those beliefs are agreed upon in the 90's without an intersex objection and you will prove me wrong!

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10563654/ this might interest you, if you bother to read it, I disagree that it has anything to do with a lack of evolutionary knowledge, in fact I find the people most ignorant of evolution strongly hold this belief regularly, but that is a mere anecdote. None of the roundtable had anything to do with that, those claims seem baseless and dataless.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That link is a great example of why gender studies degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on, goddamn. They're not doing science, they're zealots pushing for a new religion to infect science just like creationists of old 🤦

https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.21-12-0343

We provide teaching suggestions derived from student interviews for making biology more queer-inclusive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

...Your quote is about changing the culture of a workplace to increase the number of scientists, and their happiness with their job.

What's the problem with that? Why is that not worthwhile to have more scientists?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Should we also make science more Christian-inclusive? Avoid teaching things that are offensive to them? That would surely increase the number of scientists.

No, because that would be silly. Science doesn't care how you identify. Put up or shut up

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Should we also make science more Christian-inclusive?

Yes, being more inclusive is always good.

Avoid teaching things that are offensive to them?

No, but nobody said we should do that, so, what's your point?

That would surely increase the number of scientists.

We aren't increasing it at all costs, we're just finding ways to increase it by being kind to one another.

No, because that would be silly.

Yeah, that would be silly... but nobody is arguing for it and this is entirely a strawman.

Science doesn’t care how you identify.

Humans do science, humans should care.