Secular Attack On Science

[LGM]

There was a kid raped in a chucky cheese bathroom by a pervert near here. Sorry, but I have small children and I understand both the dangers and the percieved dangers. The less defined the boundaries, the harder it is to provide real protection to children from the real dangers that exist. And it is hard enough in the current environment to be able to ascertain if an environment is safe for a kid.

Was the "pervert" a transexual? Pehaps he was a plumber? Is this somehow related to the topic?

There were lots of children sodomized by Catholic Priests around here over the last few decades. That's why I never let my child go in a restroom in a church. It's just too dangerous.

I just assume the environment is NOT safe as a matter of course, which sometimes creates some awkward situations. But I'd rather embarrass someone (or my own kid) than have one my kids become another statistic. Hopefully you will not have to come face to face with a real threat to your own children to at least have some semblence of understanding as to why someone would be concerned about relaxing the definition of male and female to the point where it would be even more difficult to determine if something was amiss.

I do understand. And hopefully you understand why we can't allow any clergy to be in a bathroom alone with children, it's just too dangerous.

[oxmixmudd]

Was the "pervert" a transexual? Pehaps he was a plumber? Is this somehow related to the topic?

There were lots of children sodomized by Catholic Priests around here over the last few decades. That's why I never let my child go in a restroom in a church. It's just too dangerous.



I do understand. And hopefully you understand why we can't allow any clergy to be in a bathroom alone with children, it's just too dangerous.

Touche! And I agree with you ... any church that does not take progressive actions to make sure >=2 adults are involved in the supervision of underage children I will not let take care of my child. I also require they exercise formal identification of the parties which pick up the child. And for really young children there must be at least one female in the group of supervising adults (statistically, females are less likely to be predators). And I don't let my small children alone in a public bathroom ANYWHERE - church or not. Predatory personalities LOVE the cover of an ostensibly 'good' group or organization. And I don't trust any individual in this area just because they happen to be a 'minister' or 'priest'.


Jim

[geochron]

What I hear secularists here saying is that:
1: A person with 100% male gentalia
2: A person with 100% male chromosomes
3: A person with only a feeling of being the wrong gender

That person may have his gender changed on his birth certificate to 'female' and I would then recognize that person as objectively female.

Given the exacting attention in every other debate I've seen I find it odd that people who I thought would reject such a ridiculous notion actually are willing to equivocate to accomadate it.

Meanwhile, 4 billion people on the planet who claim to be interacting with a god aren't allowed to have the fact of a god's existence recognized as a fact by the state because there is 'no physical evidence and feelings don't suffice'.

Looks like a double standard to me.

If the state was forcing religious people to behave as if they didn't believe in God, there would be a double standard. But it doesn't.

The equivalent would be for a secular state to say "since there is no scientific evidence for God nobody is to be allowed to live as if there is one".

[Meh_Gerbil]

If the state was forcing religious people to behave as if they didn't believe in God, there would be a double standard. But it doesn't.

The equivalent would be for a secular state to say "since there is no scientific evidence for God nobody is to be allowed to live as if there is one".

I appreciate the point but am I allowed to force you to acknowledge my delusion?

If a male gets his birth certificate to say 'he' is a 'she' then what happens if I'm trying to run an all girl volleyball team? Now does the team legally have to by into this person's feelings?

To settle the argument let's say we end up in court and let's say we run a chromosome test and find out that the scientific test shows the 'she' is a 'he' - that would be a scientific test - but under the provision that wouldn't be good enough because the fact he feels like a she is all that matters.

Also, I feel like YEC is true - can I force you to teach that in school?
Oh wait, my guess is suddenly science and not feelings is the standard.
Looks like you are jumping back and forth to me... but why?

Post modern thinking.
Tests can show someone to be 100% 'male' - but that doesn't mean it is true.
That person can have their own reality and actually be a female.

That is an attack on the superiority of the scientific method, IMHO - and it is coming from the secular world. It doens't mean all secularists think this way, it doesn't mean exceptions don't exist - exceptions that thoughtful people must consider - however, it is a step away from science as the sole standard of truth and feelings are slipping back into the picture.

[sylas]

If a male gets his birth certificate to say 'he' is a 'she' then what happens if I'm trying to run an all girl volleyball team? Now does the team legally have to by into this person's feelings?

This is a great example.

So far in this thread, I have not made definite statements one way or the other on the particular legal situation in NYC -- since I don't know anything about it. I have rather been trying to tackle some confusions (as I see it) of what is science and how it applies to the relevant questions. And I have two outstanding replies that are going to take a bit of thought to compose.

This one, however, I can reply to immediately.

There are many aspects to gender beyond genitalia. There are also some overall physical differences... women tend to have more body fat, less weight, less brute strength, more stamina, and various other differences that have meant sports make a distinction between men and women; and cheats in sport can take hormone treatments to fool around with various gender linked characteristics.

Suppose we have an individual for whom it has been established that there is a real unchosen psychological basis, arising not from psychological trauma but early physical development in embryo, that lead an individual to prefer to identify themselves as "female" despite having outward "male" characteristics. Should they be able to apply legal remedy to take a place on the local women's volleyball team?

In my opinion: no. This is not a scientific judgment, but a social one. Yet it is informed by empirical considerations. Specifically, empirical considerations in this hypothetical case establish that the individual's gender characteristics relevant to their capacities for volleyball are definitely male; no matter what their psychological profile. My social judgment in this case -- one that science does not address directly -- is that team should not be coerced into treating the individual as female for inclusion in the team.

How you handle someone who has gender ambiguities in their physical body, I don't know. Case by case, I suspect. There's natural variation in women's bodies anyway.

For a small town team, I can see nothing wrong with that team deciding for themselves to accept someone who identifies psychologically as female on to the team despite being genetically and physically male. After all, they might not even be particularly strong or fast or athletic -- men vary in such things. But when it comes to competition in the league; again the rules might be such that this individual can't join in official league matches.

What I've been trying to address previously in the thread is more about the underlying and (IMO) invalid presumption that people who identify as the "wrong" gender can be presumed ("scientifically") to be just making a choice against reality. Reality, and gender, is not that simple.

From my perspective, "feelings" are physical as well. (So there is some ambiguity in my use of the term "physically" above; I trust the intended meaning is clear.) I don't actually see that this makes much difference. Can a "spirit" be male or female? There are bible verses that could be used to argue this either way; and even then you might still have to consider a possibility that individuals might get mismatches in spirit and body; since we know for sure that there are mismatches for some individuals within the body.

Cheers – Sylas

[oxmixmudd]

What I've been trying to address previously in the thread is more about the underlying and (IMO) invalid presumption that people who identify as the "wrong" gender can be presumed ("scientifically") to be just making a choice against reality. Reality, and gender, is not that simple.

From my perspective, "feelings" are physical as well. (So there is some ambiguity in my use of the term "physically" above; I trust the intended meaning is clear.) I don't actually see that this makes much difference. Can a "spirit" be male or female? There are bible verses that could be used to argue this either way; and even then you might still have to consider a possibility that individuals might get mismatches in spirit and body; since we know for sure that there are mismatches for some individuals within the body.

Cheers – Sylas

And I am listening ...

[LGM]

Another brilliant post by Sylas.

I hope Gerbz is not suggesting that anyone here, thinks any male with a clear set of male genitalia, and a confused gender "feeling", is going to get a checkmark moved on a piece of paper, and waltz into the ladies shower at the YMCA or onto his girl's volleyball team with his new found checkmark authority.

The better question would be, imagine a child growing up with transgendered genitalia, whose parents, embarassed and confused, are forced to make a decision to name him/her and raise him/her in a specific gender. A gender that as he/she matures, and reaches sexual maturity, may not be the one they best relate to. Imagine that person, with transgendered genitalia and other mixed gender attributes, even having the courage to try out for a HS team, where he/she would have to get changed and even shower with other "normal' gendered peers. I can't imagine a more emotionally difficult situation for a teenager.

I think this is the person the NYC legislation was most aimed at trying to help. But I could see the concern that it could turn into something that could be exploited by desperate con artists or perverts for personal gain.

But that is why we have people who can discern a situation and make decisions.

[Meh_Gerbil]

This is a great example.

So far in this thread, I have not made definite statements one way or the other on the particular legal situation in NYC

Not to be rude, but that is what the OP is about.
While thread here are famous for going off topic - some of your material might not be getting the play you'd expect (despite being researched and well written) because it is off topic.

What I've been trying to address previously in the thread is more about the underlying and (IMO) invalid presumption that people who identify as the "wrong" gender can be presumed ("scientifically") to be just making a choice against reality. Reality, and gender, is not that simple.

So you believe that a 100% XY chromosome bearing, XY plumbing bearing individual can NOT be scientifically established to be a male?

Despite the blood tests - the physical measurements - the sexual organs - and every other measurement that doctors have been using (and anthropologists) for hundreds of years - you personally feel uncomfortable simply assigning male to such a body?

Okay.

I find that suprising - since a 1.5 million year old fossil can be assigned a gender - maybe the less evidence you have the more sure you can be? I don't mean to be a twit there - it's just terribly amusing that you can speak with certainty about something that happened 4 billion years ago but you cannot definitely identify the gender of the person to which you are speaking when given DNA analysis?

From my perspective, "feelings" are physical as well. (So there is some ambiguity in my use of the term "physically" above; I trust the intended meaning is clear.) I don't actually see that this makes much difference. Can a "spirit" be male or female? There are bible verses that could be used to argue this either way; and even then you might still have to consider a possibility that individuals might get mismatches in spirit and body; since we know for sure that there are mismatches for some individuals within the body.

Oh...so the individual's feelings about reality is evidence on par with the chromosome analysis and plumbing observations? You are introducing feelings as scientific evidence here, sylas, and that doesn't fly.

Again, about 90% of the planet believes they communicate with a god - and they are so sure of it they modify their lives to live according to the god they've found - much like a transgender male might wear a dress. The feelings of 4 billion people isn't evidence is it sylas - if it is evidence, why do you reject those feelings but not the feelings of the sexually confused.

You see, even if the person does have feelings - that has an equal chance of meaning they are simply mentally ill. That is just as much a possibility as anything else in this senerio. That being the case, I think one is compelled to go with the evidence that can be established with a few simple scientific tests.

And no, I'm not confusing societal expectations of gender with scientific testing. The burdens and expectations put on a male or female after the gender has been determined is something else entirely.

[Dark_Bettle]

I believe that many secularists use science as a de facto religion. Obviously, the term religion is full of connotations that don't apply - by religion I mean the 'source of all significant truth' and the 'primary measuring stick for my beliefs and actions'. This religion has several prescriptions - the adoption of evolution as the creation mythology, ethics based on immediate desires, etc.

The elevation of science to a religion, however, is doing a great violence to the empirical process. This happens because the human quest for knowledge has a tendency to push any tool to it's limits - and the human tendency to use non-empirical thought is so ingrained that it sneaks into what is supposed to be purely empirical processes and is glossed over as 'science' anyways.

Religion is a set of beliefs that center around faith. Faith is a belief without formal evidence. "Modern science" is the connection of expiramental data with real life processes. The difference between faith and science and what ultimately separates them is that science has can be fully analyzed and it can receive actual empirical result, while faith can only make a human (bastardized) interpretation. This is what separates the validity of science and faith.

It is true that modern science is getting a makeover from the classic scientific method. It is well know that there are many unknown things in nature like randomness. Take a look at quantum theory; it is completely probabilistic. There are weird events like the collapse of the wavefunction, and the question of particle entanglement, so I can see why you think more modern science is falling back into religion. But what quantum theory classifies as 'religion' is the various interpretations of actual results. In other words, science can answer how something got from "A" to "B," but it cannot yet identify what happens and *why* between "A" and "B." (So this does not violate the benefits of science). So in turn, calling QT and modern science a religion is simply because their interpretations of results have no evidence.

There is every sign that the modern approach to science is fading. Despite evolution being taught in the schools - despite hours of PBS programming with Carl Sagan telling us how wonderful and how old the universe is the fact remains that the religion of Sagan is dying - it has to die, because it is self-defeating.

The most recent and telling secular attack on science is this:
In New York City the latest proposal is that you can have the sex on your birth certificate changed - even if you've not had the operation. Many places around the country already allow you to change the sex on your birth certificate if you've had the operations - but now you don't even have to have the operations.

In short, something as simple and straightforward as a person's gender is up for grabs.

The State of New York will legally acknowledge that you've been born with the wrong body. That you are a female soul trapped in a man's body - despite all of the physical evidence to the contrary.

Even the most ridiculously narrow definition of science - that I adopt and sylas has gone to great pains to refute - accepts that a person's gender can be determined with 100% accuracy. The testing is completely falsifiable, repeatable, and observable - no matter how you decide to define those terms.

In short, the state isn't just abusing science - it's completely rejecting it as a standard for something as obvious as gender. How is secularism responsible for this? Because secularism offers no standards - with no right and wrong I'm free to reject your religion because you and your methods are just one of many options in the world. If I find the religion of Christianity or the religion of Science to be unfulfilling I just make up a world view that allows me to be a woman trapped in a man's body.

Science is not practical to solve things of such human dishonesty. Anyway, how is this modern science? This time human interpretation (boy or girl) is directly related to the physical process of observation.

I do believe that the tool of science will return to it's home within Christianity - and that within a couple of generations the only safe place for it will be within theism. It will return to being a tool, instead of a world view -which is where it belongs. The writing in on the wall people

Science shall never fall into the horrid and closed grasps of Christianity or any other faith (at least human science). Science is more than just a tool, it's a method of collecting interpretation of data and corresponding it to other observations which is something religion cannot do.

[Calminian]

It will return to being a tool, instead of a world view -which is where it belongs. The writing in on the wall people.

This hits it on the head for me. Science is a method which is accompanied by certain assumptions necessarily. Science never proves these assumptions, it just can't function apart form them.

[geochron]

I appreciate the point but am I allowed to force you to acknowledge my delusion?

That it's a delusion remains to be shown. That's the point.

If a male gets his birth certificate to say 'he' is a 'she' then what happens if I'm trying to run an all girl volleyball team? Now does the team legally have to by into this person's feelings?

To settle the argument let's say we end up in court and let's say we run a chromosome test and find out that the scientific test shows the 'she' is a 'he' - that would be a scientific test - but under the provision that wouldn't be good enough because the fact he feels like a she is all that matters.

What if feelings are manifestations of underlying physical structures and chemical imbalances, which is the "secular science" point of view. Which one wins - genitalia or brain structure. Suppose the chromosome test says male but the neural scan shows brain functioning is female.

Here's the problem. Reality is not as cut and dried as you want it to be. Yes, this makes life confusing in a society that pretends there is a clear easy universal distinction between male and female. But the problem is that society is out of step with reality.

The one trumping observation with feeling is you. It's an observational fact that gender is not cut and dried. You feel as if it ought to be, and you want the state to legislate your feelings.

Also, I feel like YEC is true - can I force you to teach that in school?
Oh wait, my guess is suddenly science and not feelings is the standard.
Looks like you are jumping back and forth to me... but why?

It looks that way because you are not reading my argument.

Post modern thinking.
Tests can show someone to be 100% 'male' - but that doesn't mean it is true.
That person can have their own reality and actually be a female.

That is an attack on the superiority of the scientific method, IMHO - and it is coming from the secular world. It doens't mean all secularists think this way, it doesn't mean exceptions don't exist - exceptions that thoughtful people must consider - however, it is a step away from science as the sole standard of truth and feelings are slipping back into the picture.

Like most postmodernists, you want to pick and choose the scientific results to accept - that's a defining characteristic of YECs. The science says gender is not cut and dried, but you feel like it ought to be. So you'll pay attention to data that reinforces your view.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Like most postmodernists, you want to pick and choose the scientific results to accept - that's a defining characteristic of YECs. The science says gender is not cut and dried, but you feel like it ought to be. So you'll pay attention to data that reinforces your view.

I do not pick and chose what data I chose to accept.

I may pick and chose how I interpret that data - and I do harbor some real misgivings as to current scientific methodology while at the same time recognizing ulterior motivations.

And again, you are trying to rule by exception - I've already discarded that argument since this OP was not about gender anomolies, but about the state officially recognizing what every evidence indicates is not so. You guys keep going back to exceptions - start your own thread, that isn't applicable here.

If you want to hold that a 100% XY with all the right plumbing has a 'high probability' of being a male that is fine with me - I'll ask the mods here to come up with a different gender icon for you that represents a lack of certainty.

This for me just illustrates how plastic science has become - we can be certain a billion years ago X happened but we are no longer sure the gender of a frat boy.

Nobody has yet explained why 4 billion people on the planet who claim to experience a god - why those feelings are non-scientific claptrap while at the same time a fully biological male having 'feelings' can cast doubt on a binary system that has been in place since the dawn of man.

[TheGreenMan]

If a male gets his birth certificate to say 'he' is a 'she'...

I have an offical governmental document that says I am a female (it also gives a wrong birthday).

I wonder if I can get into the girls changing room with it? ........


I'm with LGM on this:

I hope Gerbz is not suggesting that anyone here, thinks any male with a clear set of male genitalia, and a confused gender "feeling", is going to get a checkmark moved on a piece of paper, and waltz into the ladies shower at the YMCA or onto his girl's volleyball team with his new found checkmark authority.

[Cynic Sage]

I believe that many secularists use science as a de facto religion. Obviously, the term religion is full of connotations that don't apply - by religion I mean the 'source of all significant truth' and the 'primary measuring stick for my beliefs and actions'. This religion has several prescriptions - the adoption of evolution as the creation mythology, ethics based on immediate desires, etc.

The elevation of science to a religion, however, is doing a great violence to the empirical process. This happens because the human quest for knowledge has a tendency to push any tool to it's limits - and the human tendency to use non-empirical thought is so ingrained that it sneaks into what is supposed to be purely empirical processes and is glossed over as 'science' anyways.

We see similar abuses in how some Christians use the Bible - they try to answer more questions than the tool was designed to answer. They fill in the blanks and then try to get the Bible to back their assertions.

There is every sign that the modern approach to science is fading. Despite evolution being taught in the schools - despite hours of PBS programming with Carl Sagan telling us how wonderful and how old the universe is the fact remains that the religion of Sagan is dying - it has to die, because it is self-defeating.

The most recent and telling secular attack on science is this:
In New York City the latest proposal is that you can have the sex on your birth certificate changed - even if you've not had the operation. Many places around the country already allow you to change the sex on your birth certificate if you've had the operations - but now you don't even have to have the operations.

In short, something as simple and straightforward as a person's gender is up for grabs.

The State of New York will legally acknowledge that you've been born with the wrong body. That you are a female soul trapped in a man's body - despite all of the physical evidence to the contrary.

Even the most ridiculously narrow definition of science - that I adopt and sylas has gone to great pains to refute - accepts that a person's gender can be determined with 100% accuracy. The testing is completely falsifiable, repeatable, and observable - no matter how you decide to define those terms.

In short, the state isn't just abusing science - it's completely rejecting it as a standard for something as obvious as gender. How is secularism responsible for this? Because secularism offers no standards - with no right and wrong I'm free to reject your religion because you and your methods are just one of many options in the world. If I find the religion of Christianity or the religion of Science to be unfulfilling I just make up a world view that allows me to be a woman trapped in a man's body.

The religion of science is wanning - it is receding rapidly - and there is no better evidence of that then the fact that you now can be a male or female despite what your chromosomes reveal.

I do believe that the tool of science will return to it's home within Christianity - and that within a couple of generations the only safe place for it will be within theism. It will return to being a tool, instead of a world view -which is where it belongs. The writing in on the wall people.

I think it has more to do with Truthiness than a secular attack on science.

[geochron]

I do not pick and chose what data I chose to accept.

Sure you do. You accept one sort of data to determine social gender but not another sort.

Nobody has yet explained why 4 billion people on the planet who claim to experience a god - why those feelings are non-scientific claptrap while at the same time a fully biological male having 'feelings' can cast doubt on a binary system that has been in place since the dawn of man.

Yes they have, you just didn't pay any attention to it.

To recap and rephrase, the following is a compeletely consistent stance to take. Feelings reflect underlying physical and chemical processes in brains. In some brains these correspond to the feeling that there is a God, and we allow people to behave as if there are Gods. In some brains these correspond to the feeling that one is best suited to a female role in our society, and it is proposed to allow them to adopt that role. Most of the people with that brain functioning may be female, but there is no logical necessity that only people with female genitals should have female brain processes.

Now, if someone said that they felt as if they had female genitalia but they actually had male genitalia, and it was proposed that their feeling trumped observation, you would have a point with your God example. But nobody says that. They say (in effect) that they have a female brain and male genitalia. There's no reason this can't be the case as far as I can see.

Note that there is no use of the word soul or spirit in the above - there is no need to introduce the concept to explain the position.