Steven Crowder exposes leftwing academia and peer reviewed studies.

It is something that has been concerning to me for a long time.

I have noticed for the past year or so on a certain board that shall not be named, that people were growing increasingly hostile sentiments towards scienctific inquiry. Then I saw a pragerU video on the topic, and then a certain someone on this board was whining about people listening to peer reviewed papers instead of his youtube doctors, and now we have PragerU and the TC.

There were always crackpots who were anti-science, but we may be seeing this positions becoming mainstreamed. And that is deeply alarming.

hell on both fb and reddit. been pointing out really poor research and if thinking 1 source is all you need.... well i tell them otherwise.

it seen a large uptake on this issue the tail end of 2019 and going forward.

@silentchief I am not sure what you were hoping to gain from this thread. Many of us already knew the "peer review" nonsense was mostly to convince the uninformed that some bullcrap is suddenly legitimate, and a respected opinion backed by something truthful. It's like a faith to them, like listening to the gospel from a priest that you just came in and told everyone you caught worshipping Satan. These people have no education, no training, nothing in any relevant field of science so they need this "peer reviewed" bullshit to convince themselves they're more educated on these matters than they really are.

If they actually understood how peer reviews work, and how science worked, they'd immediately understand that more than half of it is being used to manipulate how people think and feel on a specific subject, regardless of actual facts or evidence. These are not free thinkers, so why assume they'd do anything but go into a state of denial and disbelief?

They are beyond any hope. Why waste the time and effort at this point?

Hahahaha;. I can't tell if you are really serious about your posts here or just like to troll people. I mean on the one hand we have people espousing what you are in this post that are anti intellectual and don't understand how scientific research works, see vaccines, and on the other hand we have people here who do understand science and how it comes to be accepted.

Yeah, one can always cross reference scientific studies. In fact, they probably should do that.

If a properly vetted paper from a respected scientific journal is published. If I read it and find nothing scientifically wrong, with it, I am in no position to refute it. These stuff are written by people far more knowledgeable than this engineer. When we learn science, we don't just learn scientific facts, we develop an understanding for how the world works and merely looking up facts online wont bring understanding. Something a lot of the Did My Own Research crowd doesnt realize.

And 2019 is when I first started seeing it as well.

They used ot be hte ones parroting about defending science against the trans rights activists, and when the scientific validity of transmen and women became undeniable, they have now continuously and gradually moved towards becoming no longer just pseudoscience promoters, but flat out anti-science. Now they are adopting the same rhetoric and conspiracy theories the that creationists that came before them did.

And much like with the creationists their worldview is getting increasingly unpopular. What we are seeing is the death kneel of their ideology.

Of course it is not just trans rights, I would argue COVID denialism and Vaccine Hysteria arguably contributed more. It is a darn shame too, since I was hoping we could find bipartisan agreement in countering the vaccine hysteria coming from fringe left groups before this Pandemic.

I always respected most left wingers here. They seem to form conclusions based on evidence rather than working backwards for their conclusion. There is a reason why nobody here is anti-GMO, anti-nuclear and have fairly moderate views on gun control, there are no tankies either. This is in a stark contrast to the TC, who clearly works backwards from his conclusions.

To add on to what I said above,

The comparisons to creationists are extremely apt. They are pulling off the same tactics as the creationists tried to do. Which is not to disprove the current scientific consensus with better data (with vaccines or gender), but to muddy the waters and cast doubt, often in fallacious ways. With politics being their weapon of choice, rather than than inquiry and curiosity.

This is exactly what the creationists tried doing. They never attempted to provide scientific evidence for creationism, they tried using mostly emotional appeals, and misinterpret actual science to try to build a case against it.

Just look at the whole Vaccine Hysteria Fiasco that happened in the last 2 years. They cannot refute the studies showing the vaccine's efficacy, so instead they try to cast doubt on the scientific method itself.

None of this has to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm saying Man and Woman are terms used to describe biological sex.

For example, a woman is an adult who has a vagina, uterus, menstrual cycle cycle, breasts, ovaries, can birth children.

For example a man is an adult who has a dick and balls, no menstrual cycle, no breasts, an adult man cant breast feed for example or carry children.

I have no idea what point your trying to make.

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@sargentd said:

@br0kenrabbit: *doctor pulls baby out of the womb*

Tells the parents, "It's a boy!"

How's that doctor know it's a boy if it can't talk yet and can't "identify" yet lol

Well, to be fair, is that highly educated person... a biologist? No? Then, checkmate.

I'm going to get to the bottom of this steveo. I've got questions.

The genius video you linked in the OP said "the world of higher education is all a farce". My thoughts on what you meant didn't come up out of nowhere.

Ive got a question for you.

If abortion rights are considered Women's rights. * I think we can both agree the word Women has been used in this context*

But if you are telling me a woman can be a man, so XY chromosome, penis, and balls can count as a Woman.

Then wtf is a Woman, how can this count as womens rights? Or has the left been bigots this entire time and unscientific in their language? I guess they should consider this biological female rights?

On this topic i see the left as being unscientific, they are ignoring biology. When people point out the biological differences they just get mad and call you insensitive or a bigot.

Woman aren't built like this bro... Look at his shoulders and arms... especially compared to his team. How can you call this "pro-science" Nothing about this has any science involved. Its anti-science and anti-biology. and its anti-common sense...

This is cheating bro.

@sargentd said:

Ive got a question for you.

If abortion rights are considered Women's rights. * I think we can both agree the word Women has been used in this context*

But if you are telling me a woman can be a man, so XY chromosome, penis, and balls can count as a Woman.

Then wtf is a Woman, how can this count as womens rights? Or has the left been bigots this entire time and unscientific in their language? I guess they should consider this biological female rights?

On this topic i see the left as being unscientific, they are ignoring biology. When people point out the biological differences they just get mad and call you insensitive or a bigot.

Woman aren't built like this bro... Look at his shoulders and arms... especially compared to his team. How can you call this "pro-science" Nothing about this has any science involved. Its anti-science and anti-biology. and its anti-common sense...

This is cheating bro.

As I told you in the other thread.

Woman is an umbrella term for individuals who fit within a certain social group. It includes both Ciswomen and Transwomen. What you are doing is mixing up Gender, and Sex, those words arent interchangeable, and havent been for hundreds of years. Reread Br0kenrabbits posts here, he explained it really well.

The reason we have accepted the validity of transmen and women is because gender is very much a social construct (sex isn't, and no one is saying that it is). We know the mechanisms behind gender dysphoria, though not all of them. And we have more than enough evidence to show that they are sincere.

In social settings, especially modern day service economies. A person is more defined by their psychological profile and neurological characteristics than they are with their physical profile. If you socialize with a transwoman, it will be her feminine gender expression that will matter. Even if she plays sports, it depends on a myriad of factors that I wont go too much into.

Again, you keep bringing up sex, but everyone here is talking about gender.

@Maroxad said:

@sargentd said:

Ive got a question for you.

If abortion rights are considered Women's rights. * I think we can both agree the word Women has been used in this context*

But if you are telling me a woman can be a man, so XY chromosome, penis, and balls can count as a Woman.

Then wtf is a Woman, how can this count as womens rights? Or has the left been bigots this entire time and unscientific in their language? I guess they should consider this biological female rights?

On this topic i see the left as being unscientific, they are ignoring biology. When people point out the biological differences they just get mad and call you insensitive or a bigot.

Woman aren't built like this bro... Look at his shoulders and arms... especially compared to his team. How can you call this "pro-science" Nothing about this has any science involved. Its anti-science and anti-biology. and its anti-common sense...

This is cheating bro.

As I told you in the other thread.

Woman is an umbrella term for individuals who fit within a certain social group. It includes both Ciswomen and Transwomen. What you are doing is mixing up Gender, and Sex, those words arent interchangeable, and havent been for hundreds of years.

The reason we have accepted the validity of transmen and women is because gender is very much a social construct (sex isn't, and no one is saying that it is). We know the mechanisms behind gender dysphoria, though not all of them. And we have more than enough evidence to show that they are sincere.

In social settings, especially modern day service economies. A person is more defined by their psychological profile and neurological characteristics than they are with their physical profile.

I disagree, if a white guy identifies as black. I'm going to still call him white. I don't care if he grew up in a black neighborhood or was adopted into a black family. He's still white.

If someone identifies as being handicapped or crippled, but are actually able bodied... (their handicap is all in their head, or they convinced themselves they are) they still aren't physically handicapped.

A personas physical profile matter a lot. The physical stuff is what's actually there!!

You do realize that race is also a social construct right? Actual biology rejects race entirely. What is useful however is ancestry. Which does not even look close to the ridiculous US definition of race (I should mention how we define races differ a lot by culture. If you go to another culture, dont be surprised if they completely reject your definitions of race).

When someone identifies as crippled, they make a statement about the physical well being of their body. When someone identifies as a man, they make a statement about their social group. False equivalence. Again, it boils down to the difference between sex and gender.

And no it doesn't. The social and neurological attributes of someone, matter far more in this world for most people, when machines have taken over most physical work.

I think anyone who has an agenda should be barred for research. That's the best way I can put it.

@Maroxad: we disagree lets leave it at that, I don't think your view on the topic is pro-science at all.

You think the same about me. So lets just leave it at that.

Being very relativistic I see... I just follow what is stated in respected journals. And what seems to be the psychiatric and medical consensus.

It's amazing how some of you remain so ignorant. I'm not ant science but it needs to be better. And certain parties need to stop claiming they are the party of science. The experts I linked in the video shouldn't be qualified to teach or publish anything . And the peer review process that so many people hold as gospel is terribly inaccurate. I don't think I ever campaigned for people to use YouTube Doctors. However it's possible a qualified doctor could be on YouTube.

Bias is fine as long as it doesnt cloud objectivity. We have peer review processes and other vetting tools (use them all) to weed out biased hit pieces. And if they get past them (like say... the Litt Lissman did), they can be weeded out afterwards.

We already have plenty of ways a scientist can be disbarred. Risking your entire livelyhood on ideological stuff isn't worth it. The guys making nicotine denying stuff, were deep in the pockets of the tobacco industry. So they had their livelyhoods still ensured, the non gender conforming stuff don't. They simply made their case, as more and more evidence piled up in their favor. Mostly from neurology.

I wasn't referring to you with the youtube doctor. What I was referring to is the antivaxxer community, which got enamoured by some nurse making youtube videos.

You are however anti-science, with this thread being very strong evidence for that. You are attacking a system you barely understand. You are dismissing studies because you dont like their premise.

That said, I will give y ou one thing. The democrats are not the party of science. And labelling themselves as such is extremely dangerous, leading to what I call "Harry Potter Morality". Where there aren't good actions and bad actions, but rather good people and bad people.

Sorry but the gender science doesn't add up. And it's also not universally accepted. Bias will almost always affect objectivity. They made their case as more and more money piled in and the narrative became a part of the culture war.

Gender science?

All the stuff about gender falls all over the place. Genetics, psychology, neurology, sexology. And most of it isn't controversial.

And do you not realize why we have these vetting processes? They are there to eliminate human flaws as much as possible. Including bias.

Lol, this conversation reminds me of this.

@silentchief: trans-racial will be next. I give it 10 years tops.

What we will most likely see is abolition of race. Race as a concept lost all credibility with the Human Genome Project's completion. But popular culture is slow to follow.

Transgender people have been studied since the 50's consistently providing positive results. But it didn't really receive spotlight in the mainstream until Caitlyn Jenner transitioned causing our celebrity obsessed society to lose its mind. And due to our already toxic tribalist society, people quickly picked sides and would work backwards to defend it. That includes both the transwomen should compete with ciswomen in sports, and the deniers.

@Maroxad: BLM is going to be pissed if it does happen lol

Stupidity exists on all sides. If their reasoning would be silly I would bash them for it. Just like I was hoping to bash Left Wing anti-vaxxers, with this whole COVID pandemic. Oh well, maybe when the Anti-GMO crowd and Anti-Nuclear crowd comes back, we can bash them together.

Keep in mind, Race still manifests itself in society. But unlike transmen and women which have scientific legitmacy, identifying as a certain race has no evidence going for it. It is purely what we are taught.

It contradicts the shit out if each other. I read the studies I linked and it's nonsense. You didn't even answer the question I posed to you, maybe you will do it now? How many genders are there? If it isn't controversial and widely accepted this should be an easy answer for you. The one one study specifically said 15... another said infinite. So what it is it?

Here's another one

Thebiological approachsuggests there is no distinction between sex & gender, thus biological sex creates gendered behavior. Gender is determined by two biological factors: hormones and chromosomes.

Hmm sounds like we have some contradiction.

Illl give you my take. Gender describes the features of biological sex. Male and Female. Although it is certainly possible for a male to have feminine traits that doesn't mean we would change his gender category. Arnold Schwarzenegger and David Bowie are both men there just different types.

Regardless we can agree to disagree on this. I won't change your opinion and wont change mine.

@Maroxad: just to be clear when you say "deniers" what do you mean? I'm not denying there are men that identify as woman in their head and vice versa woman who identify as a man in their head.

I'm just saying we use use the words "man" and "woman" for biological sex. So I'm not going to call a man who identifies as a woman, a woman. He can do what ever he wants and call himself what he wants. But I don't have to take part in it.

Like if a guy is straight and says I'm only interested in dating women. That means something... And he shouldn't have to say "Cis women". No he's attracted to women..

You can identify however you want but the terms man and Woman are used with sex not just gender.

I wanted people to see the flaws in the system and acknowledge that. But it's like talking to a brick wall. Most think their experts ( their not) . The studies I posted prove this. I learned valuable lesson. The supposed experts will ignore valid links if it doesn't fit their narrative.( I've known this for awhile) but sometimes I just need to reaffirm how insane some of these 'experts" actually are.

This thread started with a host of the usual suspects saying I don't know how peer review works( I'm not an expert on it) . The sad thing after doing more research none of them had a clue wtf they were talking about either.

Gender exists on a spectrum or a continum. I cannot say how many genders there are because it varies from culture to culture. And your article is 8 years old... attitudes about gender and knowledge have changed a LOT since then.

Meanwhile, here are just some organizations which accept the validity of transmen and women, in the US and UK alone,

• American Psychological Association
• American Medical Association
• American Psychoanalytic Association
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
• National Health Service (UK)
• World Health Organization

Not to mention the UN itself. But they are more of politicians, so I left them out.

Yes, if you look at things purely from some fields of biology, namely Endocrinology and Genetics you might not notice much positive evidence for trans identity. But there are a lot more fields in biology than those 2. Most importantly Neurology, that is where the overwhelming evidence for their validity comes in.

There is a reason the medical industry accepts the validity of transmen as well. And this is also not due to left wing hijacking either.

But we already know of these flaws, and the rest of the people here refuse to listen to anything about them, nor do they have enough knowledge on the matter to even know what they were talking about so they have no choice but to deny anything you show them.

So just call them Transmen and Transwomen .. as opposed to men and women. Agreed?

I can't find where they accept there is no difference with bilogical data. And 8 years isn't a loooong time. Psychology shouldn't contradict biology.

Or we just use Men and Women as a catch'all term for both Cis and Trans. Like we have been doing for ages.

I was talking about Neurology as the strongest evidence. And anything older than 5 years is extremely shaky and should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially in medical sciences.

Genetics and Endocrinology does not provide positive evidence for transmen and women, but it doesnt refute them either. What you are doing is akin to trying to use studies in electromagnetism to try to refute something in relativistic mechanics.

If you want to look into why people consider transmen and women valid, look in neurology, you are asking the wrong people.

@Maroxad: I don't see transwomen as the same thing as women. So I'd call them transwomen.

If someone says "I'm attracted to only women" that doesn't include dudes who identify as woman and wear dresses.

I don't like the linguistic games this movement is trying to play.

I'd actually argue what we have been doing for ages is the opposite of what you are claiming.

My college degree didn't cone from social media. Unfortunately the so called experts in this forum seemed to be just as ignorant.

More young adults in the US, are than those who are not.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/27/rising-shares-of-u-s-adults-know-someone-who-is-transgender-or-goes-by-gender-neutral-pronouns/

And this number continues to go up.

And too bad for you, because odds are, you may have referred a transman or a transwoman by their preferred pronoun without realizing it at some point.

Bilogy specifically states that hormones shape the brain thus influence the thought process. Last time I checked that has not completely changed the last 5 years.

There are clear studies in biology thst contradict this nonsense. Although you may say you don't support trans athletes competenting. They use the excuse that "not allowing them to compete" is not accepting them. Thus they are now competing.

@Maroxad: I don't care about the pronouns, I'm talking about the terms man and woman.

Man and woman is referring to biological sex

There is a LOT more that shape the brain than hormones. The structural, very permanent causes for gender dysphoria, are not related to chromosomes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34030966/

Pretty interesting stuff in there, Transmen and women are in many cases their own phenotype. Which bides well with the whole checkered sexology that fascinates the hell out of me.

As for genetics, what you learn in middle school is impressive, but once you get to higher courses in genetics, that X, Y distinction becomes very unimpressive and it becomes an obvious case of "Lying to Children"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/

No it doesn't, read Brokenrabbits posts again.

And if you want more in detail, look here

https://brainworldmagazine.com/what-neuroscience-tells-us-about-transgender-people/

• Zachar: A person with male characteristics
• Nekeivah: A person with female characteristics
• Androgynos: A person with male and female characteristics (149 references to this in Mishna and Talmud; 350 in classical Midrash and Jewish law codes)
• Tumtum: A person with indeterminate characteristics (181 references in Mishna and Talmud; 335 in classical Midrash and Jewish law codes)
• Ay’lonit: A person classified as female at birth, develops male characteristics at puberty and is infertile (80 references in Mishna and Talmud; 40 in classical Midrash and Jewish law codes)
• Saris: A person classified as male at birth who develops female characteristics at puberty and/or lacks male characteristics (156 references in Mishna and Talmud; 379 in classical Midrash and Jewish law codes)

@Maroxad: you and broken keep referring to these genders in the Torah.

First of all neither of you guys have used ANY of these words in your life...

Are you even Jewish???

I am talking about the words MAN and WOMAN.

Which have been used to describe biological, let me repeat so you don't miss it, BIOLOGICAL males and females.

It's absolutely absurd how you guys have to literally look at the Torah of all places to try to disprove the words man and woman have been used to describe biological sex...

Lord have mercy

I used ancient jewish terminology as an example. There is also india, native americans, greeks, romans, and so many more.

Man and Woman have been used to refer to gender, a social construct for ages now. Most people just didnt realize it because in the west we had been conditioned into thinking there are 2 genders.

I am not going to tell you to accept transmen and women by their preferred pronouns. You do you. But if I at least make sure you understand WHY we consider gender in the way we do, I will be more than happy.

Man and Woman are terms for adults with certain biological sex, male and female. Because there are biological differences between men and women.

Its why we put urinals in men's bathrooms.

Its why we have men and women's basketball separate. Biological differences.

Its why we have separate gym showers in high schools.

You disagree with me on this, so we are not going to agree on the linguists of man and woman.

But i dont see the terms "man" and "woman" as ProNouns.

Man and Woman are not "he, she, him, her"

How is gender dysphoria permanent when they often refer to themselves as gender fluid..?

The second link is referring to people that have actual disorders. I realize hermaphrodite for an example exist but it is a rare occurrence. They are not lying to children when over 99% of people are born into the male/female categories.

Most transpeople are not born into their own phenotype. Unfortunately what I think we have are psychological disorders that are being pandered to. It doesnt mean these people don't actually think their women or men it means we need to stop calling them that and find a better solution.

I agree, I don't hate trans people or fear them. I'm not even against adults making decisions to get surgeries to change their physical bodies to appease their mental disorder. But I do see it as a mental disorder and people should not be bullied into lying to these people.

I don't hate someone for being trans just like I don't hate people for being schizophrenic or OCD or Autistic.

But i dont have to tell the guy with OCD its totally normal and good to flip a light switch 8 times before you leave any room because they "feel" that's what needs to be done.

Yeah, this conversation ends here...

For those who seriously don't know,

Gender Fluid people is a completely seperate situation from transmen and transwomen. While Nonbinary (which gender fluid can be classified as) people can be put in the trans category. Nonbinary people are not transmen or transwomen. Lying to children is a concept in science education where professors, give an oversimplified explanation that nonetheless get people closer to the truth. The X/Y chromosome explanation is an example of this. This is a useful way to tell just how potent genetics are, but it vastly misrepresents what is actually going on. Most of the genes for determining your biological sex aren't even on the X and Y chromosomes but elsewhere.

And the brain structure is heavily set during the development. It is entirely neurological.

Pretty much every major medical organization, including WHO removed transgender as a psychological disorder. Instead being moved to sexual disorders where they quite frankly, make more sense.

In the west, up until recently? Yes. Globally? No

This thread is way way off topic now.

it all relates back to leftwing academia