Is there anyone here who doesn't let politics influence their views of science?

Science has already found 21 differences in 17 genes of trans people.

Others theorise that due to hormone surges at some point in fetal development, the brain may develop as a different sex than the body

So much more research needs to be done

In the meantime, until concrete evidence exists I'm looking at 1% of the population and acknowledging there is a reason why this is happening and their feelings and needs are valid.

Many trans people will tell you they knew from as young as they can remember that's they were trans.

They have value and a place and I personally respect that by saying they are the gender they say they are

I think somebody, anybody, needs to prove that sexual reproduction can be achieved by anything other than a large immotile gamete being fertilised by a small motile gamete. Ask anyone involved in IVF and they'll happily explain which gamete comes from which sex.

Seriously?

VioletSky

Mollygo

If you are going to quote me and say I'm closed minded...

Prove it

Dear GNHQ
I did not specify anybody in relation to being closed minded any more than the person quoted above specified anybody.

Is there a new rule about not having differing points of view on GN, e.g. on what constitutes a closed mind?
Please let both of us know if that rule has been introduced.

I have explained my point of view re proof in my post at 22:23 above.

Mollygo

If you are going to quote me and say I'm closed minded...

Prove it

Deedaa

With a son with a passionate interest in physics and a daughter with a PhD in Biochemistry who leads a university research team politics doesn't come into my view of science at all. Although it is impossible to ignore politicians with a half baked grasp of theory which they try to base policies on.

That's the issue. Unless the data itself has been manipulated or is inadequate, the "science" itself isn't wrong.

LilacChaser

But politics and science are so intertwined it is impossible to form an opinion of one without suspecting it is being influenced by the other.

My faith and 'trust' in science has been drastically eroded as it was so influenced by the government during the covid pandemic. And also because it got so many things wrong, causing unrelenting hysteria and fear. Science was spot on with the vaccines, though, so don't want to moan too much.

I will never trust science as much as I used to do, though.

How did "science" (not the interpretations of it, which is something different) get things wrong in the pandemic?

I don’t have to prove it.
You can introduce faulty chromosomes or indeterminate genitalia or political decisions or women with penises or other diversions.
Men will never be female.
Without all your cute little deviations, show me a male-with XY chromosomes who is a woman.
The problem with this is, you introduced that sort of thing so that you can say transwomen are women. Trans women are transwomen and as such are male. Although I’m sure the internet will enable those desperate enough, to discover a transwoman with faulty chromosomes and indeterminate genitalia.
Since the patriarchal annexation of the word women to cover men, people have dragged all sorts of irregularities and deviations in to ‘prove’ their point.
But I’ll allow this, because it’s fun.
The only men who can be women are faulty men. (And since the word women now includes men . . . )

With a son with a passionate interest in physics and a daughter with a PhD in Biochemistry who leads a university research team politics doesn't come into my view of science at all. Although it is impossible to ignore politicians with a half baked grasp of theory which they try to base policies on.

Yes Elegran because of their biology and not because they decided to transition.

If the men in question had faulty chromosomes instead of the standard XY, and/or ambiguous genitalia which were wrongly assumed at birth to be male, and they were brought up as such, then they could indeed be women. Similarly the other way round. However, I don't think the majority of those transitioning come into this category.

I wouldn't set much score by a scientist who believes that men can be female Mollgo.

Mollygo, go in - prove it ??

Mollygo

Closed minds are an anathema to science-so those who refuse to acknowledge that there are male and female and men are NEVER female have closed minds.
Great! I love it!

Prove it

Closed minds are an anathema to science-so those who refuse to acknowledge that there are male and female and men are NEVER female have closed minds.
Great! I love it!

Caleo

Lack of respect for scientific knowledge IS politically generated. Right wing politicians NEED most of the people to be ignorant underlings.

That may or may not be true Caleo but it wasn't what the OP was saying.

Where have they got to, by the way?

Science needs to be funded so, if the people who have the funds say, "well, basic biology is xx and xy and I don't want to expand on that because that suits my personal opinion" then that's what happens.

Yet differences have been found and they are ignored because "we need more research" or "that research is out of date".

Closed minds are anathema to science

I love this though: "The only good scientist is one...."

That's me told ?

M0nica

The big bang meant allmother well held theories about how the universe started were wrong, and while doubt about it was not egregious as withe Wegner, there were many held very firmy to alternative theories.

Todays confirmed scientific theory or explanation may well be completely overturned in 20 years time.

This is not a criticism of science, but of dogmatic scientists. The only good scientist is one who recognises that science is only known and proved science, until a further development proves it isn't.

But earlier theories are not wrong M0nica. They are the best description we have with our current knowledge. Newton's theories of gravity did us very well until the 20th century, when Einstein expanded on them. It didn't mean that Newton was wrong. We just know more now.

Wegner didn't have a mechanism for how the drift happened and when finally pushed to propose one, he was a factor of 100 out on the speed things needed to happen to support his theory. Just having an idea isn't good enough. You have to back it up with evidence. Most "good scientists" know that.

But politics and science are so intertwined it is impossible to form an opinion of one without suspecting it is being influenced by the other.

My faith and 'trust' in science has been drastically eroded as it was so influenced by the government during the covid pandemic. And also because it got so many things wrong, causing unrelenting hysteria and fear. Science was spot on with the vaccines, though, so don't want to moan too much.

I will never trust science as much as I used to do, though.

The turtle I mean.
?

The only good scientist is one who recognises that science is only known and proved science, until a further development proves it isn't.
Like our wholehearted welcoming of the creation of plastic?

Too scary!!

It might have eaten us all by now, then fallen out of the sky.

The big bang meant allmother well held theories about how the universe started were wrong, and while doubt about it was not egregious as withe Wegner, there were many held very firmy to alternative theories.

Todays confirmed scientific theory or explanation may well be completely overturned in 20 years time.

This is not a criticism of science, but of dogmatic scientists. The only good scientist is one who recognises that science is only known and proved science, until a further development proves it isn't.

Where does the turtle come into it?