#science Denial

[stopmakingliberalslookbad]

Principles that so-called "leftists" have abandoned since October 7th

Being against religious fundamentalism: You guys used to think that fundamentalism was a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, you still believe that OTHER religions that are fundamentalist are bad, but Muslim right wing religious fundamentalism is very much okay with you. When you express support for religious fundamentalist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Islamic Republic, you are supporting suppression against women, LGBT people, and Jews (though the latter doesn't bother you at all). These are not resistance groups, they are terror groups.

Anti-racism: Mocking Israeli accents is suddenly funny to you. Jews aren't oppressed any more and antisemitism isn't as important as other forms of ethnic hate. It's okay to discriminate against people based on where they're from (the treatment of twenty year old Eden Golan is a particularly disgusting example). Indigeneity expires if you're Jewish. You support land back efforts for everyone but Jews. You employ the noble savage stereotype against Palestinians, because "That's just their way!" Holocaust inversion and even denial? NBD. Jews are trying to take over the world and are bloodthirsty monsters who support genocide. And the blatant tokenization is horrific. Some of you have even used the expression "Good Jews".

Being against ethnic cleansing: You bleat about the non-existent "genocide" in Palestine (and it is NOT a genocide according the the actual definition of the word), but your only solution is to ethnically cleanse Jews from the Middle East instead of supporting the two state solution.

Anti-nationalism: Jewish nationalism is bad. Arab nationalism is good. There are 22 Arab states and over fifty Muslim states, but even the two state solution in which there would be 22 Arab states, over fifty Muslim states and one Jewish state isn't enough, because Jews bad. Arab and Muslim conquest and imperialism? It's a good thing, ackchuyally!

Belief in science: Genetic studies prove that all ethnic Jews (yes, that includes Ashkenazi Jews) are indigenous to the Levant, but you guys seem to believe that we fell out of the sky. Archaeology proves that Jews were there first, but those findings are "fake" according to you.

Once again, I am asking why are you guys willing to sacrifice your principles for Palestine?

[enbycrip]

I am seeing so many people, especially so many veggies and vegans, laughing at the horrific right-wing thing for “raw” (unpasteurised) milk.

Please don’t. This is massively increasing the spread of zoonotic diseases like H5N1 that could *easily* become human-human transmissible - with H5N1 that’s already spinning towards *will* become human-human transmissible, and while horrific conditions on farms, including how badly they treat their human workers as well as how horrific they are to the animals, are still the primary cause of that, this bullshit is *materially* impacting it.

These people feed the stuff to their kids, who are already major transmission vectors because of school conditions. They spit it out into vulnerable communities who don’t share their horrific views; I’m chronically ill and the amount of horrific utter bullshit like this that goes out into communities of people who have been let down again and again by doctors who dismiss very real symptoms of illness, who try it because they are desperate, and then die because they are medically vulnerable.

Ring-wing ideologies *materially* impacted our ability to fight COVID, and continue to do so, and it’s the most vulnerable people in society that paid, and are continuing to pay, for that. Now they are materially increasing our risk of even more devastating pandemics.

[civanticism]

CIVANTICISM — The reason of Humanism and the compassion of Buddhism, with a touch of snark for good measure. https://www.civanticism.com/

[potentially-a-poser]

Why do conservatives only seem to care about “science” when it comes to invalidating trans people? They don’t care about science when talking about vaccines or environmental issues or germ theory.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Christina Buttons

Published: May 31, 2024

The prominent science journal Nature has launched a new opinion article series on sex and gender. One paper in this series explores research attempting to search for a biological basis for trans-identity, arguing that such research could “pathologize” and “harm” the trans community. The authors discourage “investigations into the underlying bases of transgender identity” and propose various steps for researchers to incorporate transgender activism into their work to influence research outcomes — signaling the end of Nature’s commitment to pursuing scientific truth over ideology.

The article starts by reviewing neuroscientific studies aimed at finding the cause of trans-identity in the brain, identifying 83 papers from 1991-2024. It highlights the transgender brain-sex hypothesis, which suggests that trans-identified people have brain regions resembling those of the opposite sex. However, it neglects to mention that this hypothesis falls apart because the studies did not control for confounding variables such as sexual orientation.

The article does acknowledge that “the results of these analyses have been inconsistent.” Yet, when the media covers these studies, the public is often informed by headlines such as “transgender people are born that way,” “science proves trans people aren’t making it up,” and “attacks on trans people are also attacks on science itself.” You can read a simplified explainer I wrote debunking the brain-sex studies here.

The authors move on to the more plausible “own-body perception” theory, which proposes that reduced structural and functional connectivity between certain brain networks is responsible for gender dysphoria. However, these studies do not show a causal link, only an association. Abnormalities in body perception networks in the brain are also associated with many other conditions, including body dysmorphic disorder, anorexia, body integrity identity disorder, schizophrenia, and autism.

After reviewing the neuroscientific studies, the article’s language shifts into typical activist rhetoric, claiming that research into transgender identity can be “harmful.” The authors argue that if brain scans or some other objective test could assess whether someone is experiencing gender dysphoria, it could be used to prevent people from accessing cross-sex hormones and surgeries if they are not deemed “eligible.”

"A second possibility is that neuroscientific findings related to transgender identity will fuel transphobic narratives," the authors write, citing a “feminist perspective” social science journal article on "Transprejudice."

For example, they state, "Some people argue that allowing transgender women to access infrastructure, such as public toilets or women’s prisons, threatens the safety of 'real women'." It is odd and audacious for a serious science publication to use "real women" in quotations. Moreover, their source for this claim is an article about Kathleen Stock, who does not argue that transgender women threaten the safety of biological women. In fact, she explicitly states the opposite: "I am definitely not saying that trans women are particularly dangerous – they are definitely not."

The authors also take a dig at sexologist Ray Blanchard, claiming that autogynephilia “hasn’t held up to scientific scrutiny,” citing a "feminist analysis" paper by a trans activist. Apparently, they haven't spent any time on trans Reddit, where they would encounter a vast discourse on "gender euphoria boners."

The authors end by setting “four actions” for researchers studying transgender people to prevent further “harm” from being done. They suggest researchers set up an advisory board and multidisciplinary teams consisting of transgender people to consult on their study designs and “prevent the outcomes of neuroscientific and other studies from being described and published in an overly deterministic and simplistic way.” They also dictate what should and should not be studied, suggesting researchers "prioritize research that is likely to improve people’s lives" rather than searching for the cause of trans-identity.

The final suggestion is to “rethink how ethical approval is obtained,” which relates to an example they provided of a 2021 UCLA study that was suspended after significant backlash from transgender activists. The study aimed to examine the brains of trans-identified individuals by showing them images of themselves wearing tight clothes, intending to trigger gender dysphoria. Although the study obtained ethical approval from their research institute and the transgender participants provided informed consent, it seems they weren't the right transgender people to ask permission from. Their suggestion implies that researchers must obtain approval for their studies from transgender activists.

The authors seem aware of the implications of their recommendations, as they conclude their article by admitting their approach would limit scientific inquiry:

“Our aim is not to halt scientific enquiry. But when it comes to transgender identity, knowledge cannot be pursued in isolation from the many societal factors that shape how that knowledge is received and acted on.”

This statement translates to prioritizing activism over truth-seeking when the findings might be inconvenient or misaligned with political narratives and activist goals. Such a stance compromises the integrity and credibility of science, reducing it to a tool for activism rather than a means of uncovering and understanding reality.

It is disheartening to watch one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals compromise their credibility by continuing to prioritize ideology over truth.

Besides, the authors' concerns about discovering a biological cause for trans-identity are misplaced. While there are biological traits associated with being transgender, such as same-sex attraction and gender nonconformity, “transgender” itself does not appear to be an inherent condition one can be born with. The concept of "transgender," as understood in Western cultures, is a cultural construct that doesn't have a direct equivalent in many non-Western societies.

Research into a cause for gender dysphoria would be difficult because the transgender population has become so heterogeneous. Even if one were predisposed to a psychiatric condition like gender dysphoria, predispositions are not predeterminations of a transgender outcome. The notion of transgender identities being fixed at birth is further contested by the increasing number of detransitioners and extensive research on desistance among children, suggesting that such identities can often be temporary coping mechanisms for young people in distress.

==

We're just supposed to accept that hacking off body parts and giving life-altering drugs and hormones is a completely normal part of life. And that wondering where this is all coming from, what's underlying it is the problematic part.

At its core, the point of this ideology is to pathologize the completely normal and normalize the pathological.

Carl Sagan warned us about this:

"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." ― Carl Sagan

Reality is not obliged to conform to people's wishes or preferences, and we are not obligated to lie or consign ourselves to ignorance in order to placate those wishes and preferences. We don't allow "if you find out what's true, it'll hurt our feelings" - i.e. blasphemy - for the religious. Why are we allowing genderist fanatics to get away with it, when it's still just an accusation of blasphemy?

When people say, "you're not allowed to go looking over here, it's a moral failing to do so," the correct response is to go, "now I want to go look over there even more."

-

"Sex is real... But the belief that we have a moral duty to accept reality just because it is real is, I think, a fine definition of nihilism." ― Andrea Long Chu, gender cultist and lunatic

“The facts may tell you one thing. But, God is not limited by the facts. Choose faith in spite of the facts.” ― Joel Osteen, religious nutcase and lunatic

[sophieinwonderland]

"youre using actual research when it isnt even for you" im wondering if that user even opened any of those sources or even the document itself. probably not, most sysmeds dont try to learn and just want to continue being hateful, but i find it funny that they say those sources arent about us so confidently when many of those links ARE explicitly about plurality outside of a diagnostic lens... youre embarassing yourself /directed at him

This! 🤣

This is one of their favorite lines, I've noticed. Claiming research explicitly about endogenic systems is somehow not about endogenic systems.

I swear, we could literally take part in a study, personally, and they would still try to tell us the study wasn't about us!

[nogendermoretrees]

Found myself driving behind a flat-Earther today

[imkeepinit]

[a-typical]

Then what about the liberals themselves? Turns out, the following list of beliefs and practices lands squarely in their corral: crystal healing, therapeutic touch, feather energy, magnetic therapy, homeopathy, astrology, anti-GMO, and anti-pharma. What all these ideas and movements have in common is a flat-out rejection of some or all mainstream science relevant to each subject.

Before the Trump administration and the 2020 conservative-fed resistance to the rapidly developed COVID-19 vaccine, the anti-vaccine movement (another science-rejecting platform), was led primarily by liberal-leaning communities. They practically invented the brand. For example, in 2000 the World Health Organization declared measles in the US to be “eliminated” based on the success of ongoing vaccine programs. Yet in 2019 the US logged nearly 1,300 cases of it. Who hosted most of those outbreaks? The perennially blue states of Washington, Oregon, California, New York, and New Jersey, where many parents refuse to get their children vaccinated. Now, with the anti-vax movement turning purple—as it spills into conservative enclaves—the combined total of anti-vaxers may represent as much as one-fourth of the nation.

— Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization - Neil deGrasse Tyson (2022)

[mbrainspaz]

scientist friend on the phone: I don't actually think flat earthers are real.

me: I'm looking at one right now. *waves and smiles at my only coworker who waves back*

scientist friend on the phone: I don't believe it! I've never met one!

me: are you... in the face of first hand evidence I've gathered... insisting that the existence of flat earth conspiracy theorists is a conspiracy right now??

her: ....you're hurting me.

me: What if I told you I know two flat earthers.

her: STOP

[xdeathstar78]

Look at this... 👀

Look at this... 👀 https://pin.it/3LdFcZLif

[that-bitch-abbi-lynne]

People who think evolution isn’t really are almost always just not understanding evolution, and the ones who do understand it and still think it isn’t real are willfully ignorant and stupid.

Evolution is not a god, it’s not a conscious act, it’s not a thing that does something. It’s just the byproduct of reproduction. All reproduction has the potential for mutations, and all sexual reproduction necessarily combines different traits and aspects of things to create something new. The mutations that are more beneficial, and the combinations of traits that are more beneficial, will allow a creature to survive longer. A creature that survives longer will naturally reproduce more than other creatures, and so their traits will be more likely to get passed on to new generations. Eventually, when enough of these new and more useful traits stack up, a species will be necessarily different from others that didn’t have those changes.

If a population of cats get separated, one living in an extremely cold climate and one living in an extremely warm climate, those cats will necessarily diverge and become two different species of cats. And you will understand that to be true if you just think about it. Let’s say that how they got separated a group of the cats in the colder climate split off and moved down to the warmer one. The fluffiest cats in that group will naturally start to die off, and the ones with less fur will survive longer and reproduce more. More fur means more retained heat, which is not good in hot climates. Eventually, the cats in the warmer climate will have little to no fur, and will be noticeably different from the cats in the colder climate. They will be a new species.

That’s literally the whole idea behind evolution! It’s not a contradiction of god, unless you’re stupid! We can literally see it happening, there have been studies. One such study looked at mice. They had mice in the desert and mice in a darker area. The mice in the desert were tan, and when they moved to the darker area, they got eaten by birds more often because they stood out. This created environmental pressure for darker fur, and so mice with darker fur survived longer and reproduced more, and eventually they were the most common mouse in that area. It’s literally just cause and effect.

If you still think evolution isn’t real, you’re just stupid and willfully ignorant.

[feral--bog--witch]

If I had to see and read this, so do you

'Fully functional uteruos and can menstrate' but has no ovaries for hormone production to cause menstruation and its scientifically known that any ovaries or uterus in the intersex XY are always underdeveloped or malformed, but sure, we've got ourselves a real miracle of science

[womenaremypriority]

People saying there’s infinite sexes ?? We’re never getting out of the patriarchy…