In Great Britain recently, they dropped the Cass Report, an extensive long-term study that found that the treatment gender-confused kids had received was built on “shaky foundations” and found “no good evidence to support the global clinical practice of prescribing hormones to under-18s to pause puberty or transition to the opposite sex.” In other words, prescribing puberty blockers for a 12-year-old after a one-hour consultation wasn’t backed by science.
In steps Scientific American to assure us that anti-trans people are using disinformation and fabricated research to argue against “gender-affirming care” for minors.
Three types of misinformation are being used against transgender people: oversimplifying scientific knowledge, fabricating and misinterpreting research, and promoting false equivalences. https://t.co/1AOp6Bk6A2
— Scientific American (@sciam) April 20, 2024
So is Scientific American supporting the idea that the doctor makes a guess as to the baby’s sex and sometimes gets it wrong? Because that’s oversimplifying scientific knowledge by a wide margin.
So, how many genders are there?
Many of the arguments against trans rights center on the idea that transness itself is not legitimate—that there are just two sexes, period. You describe this idea as “sex essentialism.” Can you explain that term, and talk about how it shapes the debate
Simón(e) Sun: Essentialism is the idea that you can take any phenomenon that is complex and distill it down to a particular set of traits. In the case of sex essentialism, the idea is that you can sufficiently describe sex by a few particular characteristics. In this debate, it used to be chromosomes, now it’s gametes (egg and sperm cells). The target is always moving, because if you want to make something binary, then you need to find the most binary characteristic. Today, sex essentialism boils all of sex down to the gametes that a person produces. Then you draw a line from gametes to all of these other characteristics—to sex roles, even to the personality of an entire individual. But biology is just not that simple. The sex essentialist perspective is completely wrong about the biology of how sex characteristics arise.
OK, then. One scientist says that biology is just not that simple.
Scientific American kicks off the piece by noting that “In 2023 alone, more than 500 anti-trans bills were proposed or adopted in nearly every state in the United States, targeting everything from drag performances to gender-affirming medical care to school inclusion policies for trans people.”
Drag performances for children and gender-affirming medical care for children. Life-altering drugs and surgeries for kids is the only appropriate stance.
How are you not bankrupt yet?
I mean financially, we can all see how ethically bankrupt you are.
— Billy Bragg (@Serena_Partrick) April 21, 2024
Men can’t be lesbians and gay kids don’t need to be chemically castrated.
— Chris {∜} (@ChrisFourOhFour) April 21, 2024
No. We just know it’s impossible to change sex. That’s all. Now, be off with you.
— Dr P (@Psychgirl211) April 21, 2024
Oh dear. Your magazine doesn’t merit its title.
— Clive Simpson (@QueensSpeechUK) April 21, 2024
Oh look at you, using all three of those “misinformation” techniques to push a completely false ideology
— Dr Alan Bleaching. PpDc DPhil(a) (@alanbleaching) April 21, 2024
This publication is ideologically captured.
— EvanC137 (@EvanC137) April 20, 2024
Let’s focus on the science so you farce of a publication.
Is “gender dysphoria” a psychological disorder which requires treatment or a physical abnormality which requires treatment?
— Colin Mangan (@ColinMangan_TGC) April 20, 2024
There was a time when Scientific American was focused on science, and not ideologically-driven spin in the name of social justice.
Can we get that back please?
— Kevin in Canada (@kjbrosha) April 20, 2024
Modern science — in the name of progress — has gone from trying to understand reality to denying it altogether.
Scientific progressivism is a religion. Don’t be fooled by the fact that its priests wear lab coats. https://t.co/7VQnvuW2JQ
— Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) April 20, 2024
@sciam is ideologically captured thus is not a serious publication. “Misinformation” is a label given by the ideologically captured for opinions they don’t like.
— JLRed (@JLRed5) April 20, 2024
It is amazing how easy these institutions have be captured by the leftists.
— Iron Brigade (@brigade99759) April 20, 2024
Maybe you guys should check out alchemy and do an article or two about how awesome and scientifically accurate it is.
Horoscopes too.
— Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) April 21, 2024
One type of misinformation is being used to prop up transgender ideology: Denial of the fact that there are only two biological sexes.
You’re complicit in the erasure of women. Congratulations.
— Pardon My Mess (@PardonMyMess) April 20, 2024
I got to:
“The sex essentialist perspective is completely wrong about the biology of how sex characteristics arise,” realised your entire article is based on making statements while offering zero counter argument facts and decided not to waste my time.@scisci is a joke.🤡— Heavy Lies The Crown (@CrownOnMyFrown) April 21, 2024
A tactic trans ideologues use is pretending a pseudoscience is “elevated science” people just “don’t understand.” Science uses categories and classifications, like sex, to organize. Human sex is binary and immutable. Science does not mean something must be difficult to categorize
— Two Genders One Truth (@2genders1truth) April 21, 2024
Oh no, all of the anti-trans erasure. That is why the president had trans women flashing their fake books on the White House lawn and rewrote Title IX to change “sex” to “gender identity” so biological teen boys can compete on girls’ teams and then shower with them afterward. We don’t need a Trans Day of Visibility — a minuscule percentage of people are dictating federal policy now.
***
Source link
#Scientific #American #Misinformation #Transgender #People