Gender ideology is at war with science.

D

Darth Omar

Russian asset
1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sexual differentiation (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
_________

The attempt to normalize gender deviation is hardly the only instance where science has been hijacked by ideology but since it involves children it's particularly reprehensible.

Slightly off topic, but all note the use of 'design' and 'purpose' by the authors when describing biological attribute. Two things that were supposedly dispensed with by Darwin.

Feel free to discuss either point.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sexual differentiation (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
_________

The attempt to normalize gender deviation is hardly the only instance where science has been hijacked by ideology but since it involves children it's particularly reprehensible.

Slightly off topic, but all note the use of 'design' and 'purpose' by the authors when describing biological attribute. Two things that were supposedly dispensed with by Darwin.

Feel free to discuss either point.
Click to expand...

They have a conservative agenda. Pure science shouldn't operate this way.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative association of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. The College was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] The group's membership has been estimated at between 60 and 200 members.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] ACPeds describes itself as "a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children... committed to fulfilling its mission by producing sound policy, based upon the best available research, to assist parents and to influence society in the endeavor of childrearing."[SUP][4][/SUP]

Zanga has described ACPeds as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group's core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by a different-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."[SUP][5][/SUP] The organization's view on parenting is at odds with the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which holds that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP]
 
So, they're conservative scientists as opposed to their liberal counterparts lol. With that established, their science is wrong, exactly how?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
So, they're conservative scientists as opposed to their liberal counterparts lol. With that established, their science is wrong, exactly how?
Click to expand...

As I said above, science shouldn't have a political or religious bias. When they start talking about Judeo-Christian values, traditional beliefs, traditional family unit etc. they are outside the field of science. It's like saying the theory of relativity can be seen through a religious lens.
 
christiefan915 said:
As I said above, science shouldn't have a political or religious bias. When they start talking about Judeo-Christian values, traditional beliefs, traditional family unit etc. they are outside the field of science. It's like saying the theory of relativity can be seen through a religious lens.
Click to expand...

How about we play fair and concede that both sides have an agenda if one of them does.

You link isn't a scientific criticism.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
How about we play fair and concede that both sides have an agenda if one of them does.

You link isn't a scientific criticism.
Click to expand...

The other side is the American Academy of Pediatricians. Their mission is to address pediatric healthcare standards. They don't claim a religious or social slant. What do you think is their agenda?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
The article is also critical of the term. A 'third sex' is a medically recognized deviation from the binary norm.

Is the word 'deviation' politically incorrect in that context?
Click to expand...

The AAP has no references to a "third sex" so who is the author critical of? The only place I've seen "medically-recognized deviation from the binary norm" is on conservative sites.
 
Celticguy said:
So what is incorrect in the OP ?
Click to expand...
That sexuality is a binary objective fact. That is a false statement. Maybe the author meant to say gender, with a few rare exceptions, is a binary objective fact which would be true. However the author did base his argument on his opening statement which is not factually correct, thus the OP's argument is based on a false premise. There's a big difference between gender and sexuality.
 
christiefan915 said:
The AAP has no references to a "third sex" so who is the author critical of? The only place I've seen "medically-recognized deviation from the binary norm" is on conservative sites.
Click to expand...
it also implies that those who sexuality is not aligned with the opposite gender is genetically defective.

I'm sorry but the OP is a simple minded argument based on a false premise.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That sexuality is a binary objective fact. That is a false statement. Maybe the author meant to say gender, with a few rare exceptions, is a binary objective fact which would be true. However the author did base his argument on his opening statement which is not factually correct, thus the OP's argument is based on a false premise. There's a big difference between gender and sexuality.
Click to expand...

The article addressed this, and correctly. Birds have two wings so individuals having one or three are abnormalities and not some different thing.
And this was essentially the view of the APA re homosexuals. But they found this out and didn't care to be seen as abnormal. This imperiled revenue for shrinks so they changed policy without any science.
 
Celticguy said:
The article addressed this, and correctly. Birds have two wings so individuals having one or three are abnormalities and not some different thing.
And this was essentially the view of the APA re homosexuals. But they found this out and didn't care to be seen as abnormal. This imperiled revenue for shrinks so they changed policy without any science.
Click to expand...
This is the same flawed logic that classified homosexuality as a mental illness. Look around you. There are millions of people who's sexuality isn't binary. Gender is a binary objective fact. Sexuality is not, that also is an objective fact. The OP is simply wrong. The OP obviously has an agenda other than a scientific one.
 
Celticguy said:
The article addressed this, and correctly. Birds have two wings so individuals having one or three are abnormalities and not some different thing.
And this was essentially the view of the APA re homosexuals. But they found this out and didn't care to be seen as abnormal. This imperiled revenue for shrinks so they changed policy without any science.
Click to expand...
By the way the OP was written by pediatrician, not a psychiatrist. Maybe you missed that too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top