Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yea. People are going to MASSIVE extremes to "express their true individual selves." ,Transgenderism where someone elects for surgery to physically alter how they were born certainly jumps out as one of the most extreme. I can't wrap my cortex around even the idea of surgical removal of body parts that most people protect as being indispensable. I don't think there's enough drugs in any hospital inventory that could make me comfortable with the mere idea of scalpels, clamps, God knows what other implements, digging and gouging around my genitalia.
I've heard of people that do elective amputation body modifications, but that's not about societal expectations. I've read that it may be similar experience or feeling for people with TG
Quote:
And surgical alteration to "eexpress a true inner self" goes beyond just gender alteration. Some people claim they are actually a completely different species inside. They surgically alter themselves to become reptilian, feline, canine, even some species of creature or being that does not actually exist, yet this is what they claim to be inside. And the only way they can actually "be who they are" is via surgery that would curl Joseph Mengeles hair.
It's sad. The whole thing is very confusing. The vast majority do not get surgery and just dress as the opposite sex, which tells me it's not about sex, but society and culture, which is malleable.
Quote:
I'm personally fascinated by Faerie lore. Particularly the Elves. Their legendary woodcraft, superhuman physical prowess I cling eyesight and hearing. The pointed ears, fluorescent blue or green colored eyes, sharp , raptor like facial features. All of it peaks my imagination and has inspired me to write stories and such for my own edification. But even with such a fascination and admiration for the concept of such beings would I choose to have myself surgically altered to try and become one? Ummm...no. Because I u Der stand that despite what I may end up looking like outside, I'm still a human.
Some do though!
Quote:
That a majority of women desire men to become more feminine in both physical appearance and mental process is also a non reality. Not an illusion or hallucination like the trapped in the wrong body thing, it's a construct, but no more a reality than the dream I had I could fly last night. We are merely being exposed on a bombardment basis by media that only reports on the radical fringes, and again, creates a construct that this is a majority idea. This also has the effect of normalizing or giving the appearance that this is widely accepted as a normal thing. When in reality it is anything but. I'll go out on a limb a bit here and say that the feelings on this I have noted here are far closer to the truth of the matter from most people's point of view than what we are being told by media sources. Outside the radical fringes who are so deeply immersed in the illusion that it has become reality to them, most mainstream people are having as much trouble trying to comprehend this as I have stated I am.
No, that is not how it's done. The hypothesis comes first. Then you test the hypothesis.
That is the problem with scientific illiteracy. You do not take the data and form a hypothesis to fit it.
No.
That is not a scientific theory. That is layman theory.
No, you are wrong. That's not how it works at all.
Well, whatever it is you are talking about it's not science. That's not how the scientific method works nor does it in any way describe scientific theories.
Again, there are NO scientific theories in any of the social sciences. eta: big surprise.
You don't know anything about science.
It is not possible to have a hypothesis without first observing and generalizing. Obviously you never did research, but if you did, you had no idea what you were doing.
It is not possible to have a hypothesis without first observing and generalizing. Obviously you never did research, but if you did, you had no idea what you were doing.
You know, it's not necessary to personally address me, and insult me, rather than just the content of my posts. I am a working physical chemist and I do publish, so I know a little something about research. Anyhow, let's just get on with it. Let's differentiate between personal observations and scientific observations.
Scientific observations are not random and they do not stand alone. Any person can observe an event, but that, on it's own, is not scientific observation. So, any of us looking at the behavior of a population, a chemical reaction, or an outcome can draw conclusions about what we may think is going on, but that is not scientific observation. It's just us judging as we go along with perceptions forever colored by personal histories. All very biased. When we are trying to have intelligent discussion, or to consider anything at all, we are always at the mercy of our knowledge gaps and limitations. This is where superstition, religion, conspiracy theory, etc easily comes into play. Here we can differentiate scientific observation, which is key to why science is successful.
Of course there is a level of expertise on the part of a scientist making an observation that contributes. I will even venture to say that only experts in the field can make observations that contribute to the science. Why? because scientific observations stand upon, and incorporate, a body of science. These observations are not based on, or limited by, your knowledge base, but a body of scientific knowledge that already exists. From that space that is knee deep in the nitty gritty of the data will observations be made where questions arise and potential explanations be offered that will lead to the generation of hypotheses.
Given that you are not an expert in the field, and that the science available does not support the assertions you have made, you have not made any scientific observations. Your generalizations, which are really just biased conclusions, are also without merit.
You know, it's not necessary to personally address me, and insult me, rather than just the content of my posts. I am a working physical chemist and I do publish, so I know a little something about research. Anyhow, let's just get on with it. Let's differentiate between personal observations and scientific observations.
Scientific observations are not random and they do not stand alone. Any person can observe an event, but that, on it's own, is not scientific observation. So, any of us looking at the behavior of a population, a chemical reaction, or an outcome can draw conclusions about what we may think is going on, but that is not scientific observation. It's just us judging as we go along with perceptions forever colored by personal histories. All very biased. When we are trying to have intelligent discussion, or to consider anything at all, we are always at the mercy of our knowledge gaps and limitations. This is where superstition, religion, conspiracy theory, etc easily comes into play. Here we can differentiate scientific observation, which is key to why science is successful.
Of course there is a level of expertise on the part of a scientist making an observation that contributes. I will even venture to say that only experts in the field can make observations that contribute to the science. Why? because scientific observations stand upon, and incorporate, a body of science. These observations are not based on, or limited by, your knowledge base, but a body of scientific knowledge that already exists. From that space that is knee deep in the nitty gritty of the data will observations be made where questions arise and potential explanations be offered that will lead to the generation of hypotheses.
Given that you are not an expert in the field, and that the science available does not support the assertions you have made, you have not made any scientific observations. Your generalizations, which are really just biased conclusions, are also without merit.
Mmm. But science has more branches on its tree than the value of Pi computed to the last digit. Just keeps going and going and going. And all those branches weave over each other. For example, you're a chemist. I'm a pipefitter/plumber water treatment specialist and fuel burning equipment tech. There is some pretty detailed science ce to both our jobs, and those sciences overlap. For the sake of simplicity I'll just name a basic few.
In my trade I have to have a working knowledge of many aspects of chemistry. Specific gravities, dilution ratios, Boi g points, physical properties, stabilization temperatures and pressures flash points etc. All chemistry related. In your field you must understand pressure to volume ratios, static and working pressures, supply and pointed of use pressures and volumes, containment capacity , wet surface under vapor, air over hydraulic function, all facets of my field. Yet, we both have a working knowledge of all of them, out of necessity.
And from all these things we apply a science, not a theory or hypothesis, and actual science that when these things are
combined properly whether parallel or in a series it makes things work. Whether the desired result is a properly control chemical reaction or non reactive combination, or a properly contoured ow of liquid or gas at point of use. Of course our areas of endeavor are in physical science for the most part, and the science at issue here is medical, phsycological , and a host of other very complex life sciences. None of what I have postulated on the subject of this transmission see Der issue and the surgical procedures and such can be considered truly scientific. Lol, nor can anything anyone else has posted u less they are a medical specialist in any of the related fields. Which I highly doubt anyone here is. Tberefore, in scientific terms, we're just spit balling .
But it's interesting. I'm no expert in the science behind the subject at hand, but I have enough savvy in life sciences a d medical science to make a valiant attempt at some theories in certain areas. Lol, I do find it amusing that you would be told you know nothing about science and your a chemist. I reckon folks should think a bit more before posting something like a shot in the dark that may prove embarrassing.
[quote=Vector1;49163141]Some do try to use outliers to imply there are no norms, and the exception to the rule is just as important, even if it is 0.5% of the population.
I have to say 2sleepy (and you should know this) that while sweeping generalizations and stereotyping is not scientific, in many instances the general theme tends to be accurate.
Having the woman of the house love violence and having her marine husband crying at the same movie is atypical.
Also, while you are non violent, remember you could be strong willed, where other women are more influenced by outside factors. They may also have come of age during this current female empowerment period Hollywood is promoting in movies, TV shows and even commercials.
Rest assured stats show female arrests for assault & battery (and other more violent crimes) have exploded in recent times compared with historical data.
Entertainment promoting the notion women must be more like men in terms of aggression(though not framing it in those terms) certainly is a factor. Heck you now have the MMA with female fighting. I never grew up with that crap, but young girls of today are undoubtedly influenced by it.
Of course the opposite is true of male imagery, depicting it as being ok to dress or act feminine. Young influential boys can also get the wrong message. Granted most hetero boys and not going to turn homo or become trannys.
However if society as portrayed by entertainment implies gender roles are different than traditional "American red blooded men", it is not surprising you have guys running around acting and looking less masculine.
Heck I almost pulled over the other day when I saw what I thought was a woman with a flat tire on the side of the road.
As I got closer and slowed down, it was a frigging guy with a so called "man bun". The thing was so high it could have been a "man hive".
The point being that without societal pressure and stigma to combat the onslaught of liberalism & PC in entertainment, schools, etc., young boys will not be aspiring to be John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, but instead Paul Reubens or Jim Parsons
Also, don't forget that there have been studies to show that effeminate boys tend to become homos or bisex. I guess most liberals would just claim they were already that way by birth, but as we know, not all homos were born that way, and were once heteros. If we start raising our children to be without gender norms, who knows where that could lead.
It would lead them to be their own person and not someone you want them to be.
Some do try to use outliers to imply there are no norms, and the exception to the rule is just as important, even if it is 0.5% of the population.
I have to say 2sleepy (and you should know this) that while sweeping generalizations and stereotyping is not scientific, in many instances the general theme tends to be accurate.
Having the woman of the house love violence and having her marine husband crying at the same movie is atypical.
Also, while you are non violent, remember you could be strong willed, where other women are more influenced by outside factors. They may also have come of age during this current female empowerment period Hollywood is promoting in movies, TV shows and even commercials.
Rest assured stats show female arrests for assault & battery (and other more violent crimes) have exploded in recent times compared with historical data.
Entertainment promoting the notion women must be more like men in terms of aggression(though not framing it in those terms) certainly is a factor. Heck you now have the MMA with female fighting. I never grew up with that crap, but young girls of today are undoubtedly influenced by it.
Of course the opposite is true of male imagery, depicting it as being ok to dress or act feminine. Young influential boys can also get the wrong message. Granted most hetero boys and not going to turn homo or become trannys.
However if society as portrayed by entertainment implies gender roles are different than traditional "American red blooded men", it is not surprising you have guys running around acting and looking less masculine.
Heck I almost pulled over the other day when I saw what I thought was a woman with a flat tire on the side of the road.
As I got closer and slowed down, it was a frigging guy with a so called "man bun". The thing was so high it could have been a "man hive".
The point being that without societal pressure and stigma to combat the onslaught of liberalism & PC in entertainment, schools, etc., young boys will not be aspiring to be John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, but instead Paul Reubens or Jim Parsons
Also, don't forget that there have been studies to show that effeminate boys tend to become homos or bisex. I guess most liberals would just claim they were already that way by birth, but as we know, not all homos were born that way, and were once heteros. If we start raising our children to be without gender norms, who knows where that could lead.
It would lead them to be their own person and not someone you want them to be.
You kinda supplied the rebuttal to your own argument
Mmm. But science has more branches on its tree than the value of Pi computed to the last digit. Just keeps going and going and going. And all those branches weave over each other. For example, you're a chemist. I'm a pipefitter/plumber water treatment specialist and fuel burning equipment tech. There is some pretty detailed science ce to both our jobs, and those sciences overlap. For the sake of simplicity I'll just name a basic few.
In my trade I have to have a working knowledge of many aspects of chemistry. Specific gravities, dilution ratios, Boi g points, physical properties, stabilization temperatures and pressures flash points etc. All chemistry related. In your field you must understand pressure to volume ratios, static and working pressures, supply and pointed of use pressures and volumes, containment capacity , wet surface under vapor, air over hydraulic function, all facets of my field. Yet, we both have a working knowledge of all of them, out of necessity.
And from all these things we apply a science, not a theory or hypothesis, and actual science that when these things are
combined properly whether parallel or in a series it makes things work.
Indeed. There would be little point without application.
Quote:
Whether the desired result is a properly control chemical reaction or non reactive combination, or a properly contoured ow of liquid or gas at point of use. Of course our areas of endeavor are in physical science for the most part, and the science at issue here is medical, phsycological , and a host of other very complex life sciences. None of what I have postulated on the subject of this transmission see Der issue and the surgical procedures and such can be considered truly scientific. Lol, nor can anything anyone else has posted u less they are a medical specialist in any of the related fields. Which I highly doubt anyone here is. Tberefore, in scientific terms, we're just spit balling .
But it's interesting. I'm no expert in the science behind the subject at hand, but I have enough savvy in life sciences a d medical science to make a valiant attempt at some theories in certain areas.
Yes, I agree. That's all it is. I don't know if an expert in any field could say much of anything either. There really isn't any science in this space to begin, which is a drawback of the social sciences. It's all social constructs and psychology gobbledygook and seemingly impossible to nail down. I was reading this earlier and this guy's happy example does a better job describing what I mean. Why psychology isn't science - latimes
Quote:
Lol, I do find it amusing that you would be told you know nothing about science and your a chemist. I reckon folks should think a bit more before posting something like a shot in the dark that may prove embarrassing.
I don't know how people can be so confident in their assumptions about subjects nobody has much of a handle on. Although, I'm suspicious that she's just pulling legs.
Some do try to use outliers to imply there are no norms, and the exception to the rule is just as important, even if it is 0.5% of the population.
I have to say 2sleepy (and you should know this) that while sweeping generalizations and stereotyping is not scientific, in many instances the general theme tends to be accurate.
Having the woman of the house love violence and having her marine husband crying at the same movie is atypical.
Also, while you are non violent, remember you could be strong willed, where other women are more influenced by outside factors. They may also have come of age during this current female empowerment period Hollywood is promoting in movies, TV shows and even commercials.
Rest assured stats show female arrests for assault & battery (and other more violent crimes) have exploded in recent times compared with historical data.
Entertainment promoting the notion women must be more like men in terms of aggression(though not framing it in those terms) certainly is a factor. Heck you now have the MMA with female fighting. I never grew up with that crap, but young girls of today are undoubtedly influenced by it.
Of course the opposite is true of male imagery, depicting it as being ok to dress or act feminine. Young influential boys can also get the wrong message. Granted most hetero boys and not going to turn homo or become trannys.
However if society as portrayed by entertainment implies gender roles are different than traditional "American red blooded men", it is not surprising you have guys running around acting and looking less masculine.
Heck I almost pulled over the other day when I saw what I thought was a woman with a flat tire on the side of the road.
As I got closer and slowed down, it was a frigging guy with a so called "man bun". The thing was so high it could have been a "man hive".
The point being that without societal pressure and stigma to combat the onslaught of liberalism & PC in entertainment, schools, etc., young boys will not be aspiring to be John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, but instead Paul Reubens or Jim Parsons
Also, don't forget that there have been studies to show that effeminate boys tend to become homos or bisex. I guess most liberals would just claim they were already that way by birth, but as we know, not all homos were born that way, and were once heteros.
If we start raising our children to be without gender norms, who knows where that could lead.
First you need to define masculine and effeminate. If you think my husband is "effeminate" because he cries during movies you're wrong. He's a decorated marine veteran saw more combat than 90% of the posters in these forums, and he's a 3rd degree black belt in Aikido. He's sensitive and kind and if men have to give up those traits to be a "real man" then I would say that is not something to aspire to.
And I'm not masculine in any way. I raised two kids and I'm very involved with my grandkids. Along with the occasional violent movie but I also like to crochet and I'm an excellent home cook. I grew up as an outrageous tomboy, my parent's never worried about it or tried to stuff me into pink frilly dresses, they had enough respect and love for me as a child to let me be what I wanted to be, and guess what..in spite of being tougher and more athletic than at most of the boys I hung out with I didn't "turn gay"
You see, the problem is not with my husband and I being "atypical", it's with people deciding when people are conforming properly and if they aren't then claiming they must be an "outlier", because none of that is really based on science, it's colored by ones own preconceptions and biases. For example, "Most women like soap operas" could simply mean that 51% of women like them and the other 49% prefer to watch John Vick or a Quentin Tarentino movie. As was pointed out by another poster, 45% of the people who watch football are women, so that means that only 55% of men watch. Does that mean that the men who don't watch football aren't "real men" and the women who enjoy it are "bull dykes"
The whole argument is nonsense. People are too complex to try to set norms that you think are appropriate for them. My advice; just live and let live. Don't judge people and decide that "most women aren't good software engineers" or that "most men wouldn't be good at nursing". And if you do that, there's another plus, you won't get fired like the Google dork did for trying to tell his co-workers what women were and were not capable of.
Scientific observations are not random and they do not stand alone. Any person can observe an event, but that, on it's own, is not scientific observation.
It is possible to make careful observations. The observations people make don't have to be random and they don't have to stand alone. Whoever said that?
Observations most certainly can be scientific. Controlled experiments are not always possible, for one thing.
And scientists very often make observations before doing experiments. Survey research, for example, involves collecting data (observations).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassy Fae
When we are trying to have intelligent discussion, or to consider anything at all, we are always at the mercy of our knowledge gaps and limitations. This is where superstition, religion, conspiracy theory, etc easily comes into play. Here we can differentiate scientific observation, which is key to why science is successful.
Sure, let's stop thinking and observing and let the Scientists tell us what is true. We can't trust ourselves. Heaven forbid, we might believe in God if we start ignoring Richard Dawkins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassy Fae
Of course there is a level of expertise on the part of a scientist making an observation that contributes. I will even venture to say that only experts in the field can make observations that contribute to the science. Why? because scientific observations stand upon, and incorporate, a body of science. These observations are not based on, or limited by, your knowledge base, but a body of scientific knowledge that already exists. From that space that is knee deep in the nitty gritty of the data will observations be made where questions arise and potential explanations be offered that will lead to the generation of hypotheses.
Let the experts do our thinking. Never dare to doubt them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassy Fae
Given that you are not an expert in the field, and that the science available does not support the assertions you have made, you have not made any scientific observations. Your generalizations, which are really just biased conclusions, are also without merit.
You cited one study that found no difference between genders, ignoring decades of gender difference research. One psychologist decided that there are no big differences, and you accept that as fact because of its political "correctness."
Even if there were no genetically determined differences, it is impossible to deny cultural learned differences.
But there obviously are biologically determined differences also. Women and men do not have the same hormones. And females give birth and usually have more of the responsibility for taking care of children.
It is also perfectly obvious that males and females, in our culture, tend to have different interests. I can easily think of examples within the past 24 hours -- I visited friends and the wife was making an embroidery for her grandchild, while the husband was talking about cars.
You have to be in your own politically correct world to not observe these things.
Maybe it's in style now to pretend you are genderless. Some people are relatively genderless, but EVERYONE KNOWS most are not.
I know A LOT more women than men who love cats. I know A LOT more women who sew or do some kind of needlework. I know A LOT more men who love cars, or guns, or sports.
It is NOT unscientific to notice reality, even if it is not politically "correct."
It's hard to know what gender differences are cultural and which are inborn. But we know the differences are real.
Indeed. There would be little point without application.
Yes, I agree. That's all it is. I don't know if an expert in any field could say much of anything either. There really isn't any science in this space to begin, which is a drawback of the social sciences. It's all social constructs and psychology gobbledygook and seemingly impossible to nail down. I was reading this earlier and this guy's happy example does a better job describing what I mean. Why psychology isn't science - latimes
I don't know how people can be so confident in their assumptions about subjects nobody has much of a handle on. Although, I'm suspicious that she's just pulling legs.
***dips toe into water...Brrrrrr****
Jumps in-----I think that there is more to science than infinitely iterated steps to an inescapable conclusion.
The weather is extremely complex..so much so that whole bodies of math have been invented to attempt to model it--still the success rate is less than 100%. Still, the variables are not infinite. And the models keep getting better.
Thus with the Social Sciences--there is no 100% predictive model--but what we do have is based on science...Biology is pretty exact--and the role of biology in human behavior cannot be overstated..well..actually it can..but you have to work at it.
In the physical sciences, is there room for artistry? Do some have a 'knack' while others plod? I suspect that is true--creativity has a place in science. The innovative leap is still possible.
Thus it is in the Social Sciences--some 'get' the gestalt--some just glimpse it. But it's not all 'gobbledygook'--it's just not always the same answer to the same question--a lot more multiple causation--chemistry, I suspect.
Please be kind..I just evolved and still getting the hang of it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
