Not to mention that they used deceitful arguments to phrase their opposition's side of the argument. What I heard essentially is "We're arguing for science and everyone against us is "Attacking Trans-Children"". You can argue against an ideology without attacking a child. Using deceitful tactics like this speaks volumes about the people using them.
During the twin’s psychiatric visits with Money, and as part of his research, Reimer and his twin brother were directed to inspect one another’s genitals and engage in behavior resembling sexual intercourse. Reimer claimed that much of Money’s treatment involved the forced reenactment of sexual positions and motions with his brother. In some exercises, the brothers rehearsed missionary positions with thrusting motions, which Money justified as the rehearsal of healthy childhood sexual exploration. In his Rolling Stone interview, Reimer recalled that at least once, Money photographed those exercises. Money also made the brothers inspect one another’s pubic areas. Reimer stated that Money observed those exercises both alone and with as many as six colleagues. Reimer recounted anger and verbal abuse from Money if he or his brother resisted orders, in contrast to the calm and scientific demeanor Money presented to their parents.
We still don’t know what a male or female is. Thus far, playing with dolls and wearing a dress at 3 years old seems to be the best indicator of real science but who knows really. We may never know.
@@kw2080 with your logic we don't know what anything is in the world. Why do you think we've we made up names for almost every single thing? To easily identify what is observed. These words and their definitions have meaning, use, and purpose. Something that is lacking in this new age Dogma
Inevitably Money's research is always sited. But they don't question the validity of it because it affirms their stance. One only needs to understand who Money was and his motives to see that is extremely flawed
@@jorgecea4473 Sometimes immoral science is the best way to figure shit out, the reason why our medicine is so good now is because of horrid fucking experiments going on during WW2 with the nazis and communists. Also weirdly enough, without nazism in the 1930s we wouldn't have space travel, strange how the worst type of people the world has ever seen pushed us so far in scientific advancment, but they were all terrible people either way. So I think immoral science should still be a thing from time to time.
@@jorgecea4473 I will always remember John Money as the man that killed an entire family, and got away with it. He is responsible for the destruction of Bruce’s entire family and the inevitable deaths of the two brothers. Not to come off as a holier than thou Christian, but I know for a fact that unless he truly repents for his actions against that family, he will be damned by God for all of eternity.
Ironic somebody studying history of science at Johns Hopkins doesn't seem to know that JH had some of the earliest gender clinics, and did the earliest sex change operations. Then, after years, they concluded that surgery wasn't helping, their patients were mentally no better off, or worse, after "transitioning". So in 1979 they stopped offering surgery, and concentrated instead on treating their patient's mental needs, helping them come to terms with, and manage life, as their actual sex. Paul McHugh, former Chief Of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, played a big part in that change. So "helping" children, who aren't mentally mature enough to vote, get married, work, sign a contract, and indeed do much other than ride bikes and go to school, to have irreversible surgery and hormones, because they think they're the wrong sex, is horrific. It absolutely should be prevented. This is not "accessing healthcare". There is nothing wrong with these children's physical health. They're mentally ill, or just being socially influenced, and that needs addressing. There is so, so, so much stuff underlying this issue, that transgender advocates like to keep buried, and keep out of public discussion with cheap and easy slurs and accusations. Against people who really do care about children. In the last few years there's been an epidemic, especially among teenage girls, of "transgenderism". I very much doubt that they're all innately boys, and that girls in previous generations simply never realised it, and now live happily as women, unaware of the chance they missed out on to be their "true selves". This is an express train and it AT LEAST needs slowing down and examining. That's a statement of concern stemming from compassion, love, not hate. Dr Paul McHugh wrote this article on the subject "Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme" - www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/ [Interesting factoid: The founder of that University was actually called Johns Hopkins. His first name was "Johns"! ]
@@MargotSolanas It is, isn't it? Please share it! And Dr McHugh wrote it in 2015, arguably before things had got as bad with medicalising kids, with people so keen to give them "access to" drugs and surgery. Trans advocates claim that "puberty blockers" (off-label chemotherapy drugs) allow a child to grow up without having to go through puberty, then decide on an artificial puberty by taking hormones. The problem is, that kids don't just mature up to adults by themselves, like boiling an egg for 3 minutes. Puberty is what MAKES you grown-up! Puberty is painful, exciting, embarassing, challenging. You go through all sorts of experiences and feelings, and figure out ways of dealing with them. That's becoming an adult. So an 18 year old who hasn't been through puberty, is an 18-year-old child. Or 21, or whatever age. They haven't had crushes, felt love, felt alienated and angry and the beginning of adult friendship. They don't have the maturity to decide for themselves on puberty, because puberty GIVES them the maturity. I'm sure we can all identify with that idea.
Firstly, transness is not about thinking that you were born the wrong sex, but that your internal perception of yourself does not coincide with who you are in society or in your body, this can be related to sex or it can be related to something deeper. In addition, dysphoria can only concern certain parts of your body without affecting others, which is why not all trans people fully make a medical transition, because for trans people, being them is not about conforming to society's opinion of what a man is and what a woman is. For them, some parts of their body are not perceived as related to male or female identity, but as just separate organs that they have, someone can consider themselves as a woman with a penis, for example. Secondly, there is a lot of actual studies that supports gender affirming care and the existing of gender identity as a part of people nature and not just psychology or thoughts, there is a biological aspect to it.
I also think that trans kids need to have access to social transition and puberty blockers, that's something kids can be allowed to do, deeper changes really aren't appropriate for kids, but they have every right to puberty blockers and social transition.
You do know that the fact that John Money's freak experiments were thoroughly unsuccessful and resulted in a double self-deletion is common knowledge, right?
@@cockoffgewgle4993the ironic thing is he was praised by the trans community between 70s and 2002 In 2002 he received the lgbt magnus heirshfield award and later that year David reimer too his life That started the back lash from intersex groups. Just actual history
@@dimetronome Nope, they even claim sex is a social construct and twist it in every way imaginable. As for gender, it's obviously tied to sex. When more than 99% of people's gender align with their sex, maybe we shouldn't use the 0,5% left to define norms.
@@dimetronome it's ridiculous at all You are ridiculous person You didn't study advanced biological sciences that's why you don't how much biology is complicated not simple like male or female Sex is spectrum 🍭🍭🍭🌈🌈🌈🌈 Just like electromagnetic radiations
@@albertfralinger2711 Have you actually read the science? It's not remotely junk; there are quite a few high-quality, long-term studies out there on this topic. They're not at all hard to find via search engine.
@@jfm14 Well you don't need a PhD to know that gender dysphoria is not contagious nor is it a kind of disability. It is not as if you could examined this gender identity with any medical device to find it anywhere in the human anatomy such as in the bloodstream or lungs.
@@jfm14 I’m going to k1ll myself unless you give me 1 million dollars. Do I sound mentally ill? Now replace that with give me a sex change. Apparently scientists now say I’m perfectly sane
This video: "We dont really know what makes someone a man or a woman" and questions whether we can approach this issue biologically. *meanwhile, trans people literally take hormones and surgeries to physically match with the sex they would've preferred to have been born into* Also there are sex differences in brain morphology that are also present in transgender people, so saying that gender is based on sex/biology is not transphobic either
Precisely. This topic is ultimately avoided by transphobes and no answer can be provided because it demolishes the main strawman of transgender people allegedly "denying that biological sex exists". We do not deny it. Despite gender itself being partually, somethimes overly, dependent on culture, almost everybody awknoledges some fundamental differences in the reproductive biology and neurophysiology of all AMAB/AFAB people influenced by genes and hormones. Else there would be no reason to take hormones and have surgery instead of simply socially transitioning ; trans brains are different in a similar way cis men's and women's are - else there would be no real reason for intense persistent bodily dysphoria that doesn't get alleviated by simply changing gender roles.
We are almost a year in to this and nothings changed. Protect trans kids the very kids who can't make decisions about alcoholic consumption, drive, vote, and buy cigarettes.
No citations, no statistics, no studies, and no refutation of the so-called "junk" studies. Just a dude with a squeaky voice who hardly passes as a woman lecturing us how we're racist for some reason. Nope, definitely no conflict of interest going on. No-sir-ee
Pure attempt at bending science in a political way. These people come from social "sciences", which is the real pseudo science. Unfortunately, they manage to have a very important influence on real sciences. And the proof is here: why is Scientific American putting this garbage on its channel?
@@ZONE-fj8lyptsd, which is a nurtured disorder and it’s socially constructed through the environment becomes debilitating. So I can see how gender dysphoria can become a disability
@@ryanthomas9306 So wrong, disability occurs when there is a fracture somewhere in the human body or an infection from a chronic disease that impairs someone's internal organs. Gender dysphoria could not be found and be examined in the human anatomy under any medical devices by checking their bloodstream, lungs or kidney. So I can see how gender dysphoria could not cripple or infect anyone. Therefore, it is purely a mental disorder from social life, not a real physical impairment from an environmental case.
you both danced around the actual examples and gave little (well-explained) evidence. you've proved only that if you label something misinformation or culturally biased then it must be so. this isn't a topic to be done in a 6:21 video. watching this was frustrating, and would've been more credible with biologists with opinions that didn't affirm your narratives. that's what science is debate and agreed upon facts.
I totally agree. Moreover, sex is biology. By the own admission of the people speaking here, "gender" is subjective. How can it be studied "scientifically"? And then we are told that science is wrong, because there genders are "non-binary"! How much more ridiculous can they be?
Why is something more credible if presented by a biologist? Isnt that falling into bad habits of only an authority can spread the information? Surely better if the more complex biology / science stuff is broken down to a more simplified lateral explanation, where the word OR is replaced by AND , binary thinking is not allowed?
actually science is a method of challenging facts. curiously the scientific method requires that facts must be falsifiable. hence the need for open debate.
@@robbaker1841 more specifically, it would've been more credible if the discussion between biologists with differing understandings of the topic were made mention.. the results of said understandings being represented would be a more accurate representation of the agreed upon facts, thereby making the assertions in the video more than editorial. it's ok to make opinion pieces but you can't be surprised if no one views you as a source of objective facts.
Why is a scientific journal now consulting professors of trans history for opinions on what constitutes junk science, instead of publishing quality scientific and medical research studies? Shame on you, Scientific American. Don't post this opinion on your site, giving people the impression that it is anything but an isolated opinion from an academic from the Arts, not the sciences.
Oh here's my expert who just so happens to also be a trangender person and has absolutely no bias in the conclusions of the studies. Just trust me bro. -Scientific American
Exactly my thought. Regardless if i agree o r not, they aren't providing any legitimate sources in this video. Junk science? Show me, don't just tell me.
@@kw2080that’s not how it works… science is science, you’re supposed to learn from it If you followed questionnaire based surveys on happiness, then every man should have a Ferrari and every woman should get free boob jobs
I wouldn't have expected to see such a disingenuous bad faith video from this channel. And the not so subtle attempt of tying this into race science was repulsive. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Race thesis: White Europeans are superior to other races. Evidence through spurious (junk) research supports this contention. Christian-gender thesis: God made man and woman different for separate gender roles. Evidence through spurious (junk) research supports this contention.
@@sandal_thong8631 I'm not sure what you are getting at. This seems like the mother of all strawmen. There is NO science research stating what you are referring to, and no one in the realm of ANY science is thinking like this. There might have been some, to justify colonialism in the XIXth c. and before, but all of this has been swept away in ridicule a long while ago. But indeed, there are still people who act and think as if such ideas were still relevant, still currently held or had been in a relatively recent past. It's certainly not the case in science. But for these people, it's practical to entertain such a belief. The clip is criticizing science. You cannot get more of a strawman: it's a totally fabricated thesis to discredit science. Btw, what you are talking about belongs to sociology at best, not science. Including the idea of "genders", something that nothing in biology can substantiate, that relates in fact to inner feelings or a perceived set of social rules. It's indeed hardly even sociology, or at best, it's a terrible type of politicized sociology. But it has nothing to do with hard sciences, which is what people here are outraged about: this totally unjustified criticism.
They had no idea who was male or female? You actually say it wasn't hormones, gonads, or chromosomes. 99.9% of the time just one of those will tell you. All 3 together and you definitely know who's male or female. Why is it that when we classify animals it's binary with either male or female in mammals but humans we think are different? Can we choose what race we are too? If not why is one allowed and not the other?
1:30 You gotta love how plenty of "academics" and "journalists" like to talk down to the rest of people. In their narratives, it's always the other people who are prejudiced and who need to be "educated". As if they stand outside and above society and other people's intuitions mean nothing. As if they themselves could never have questionable incentives or biases.
Those with extremists views and prejudices reject opinions of authorities like professors and journalists and lately medical experts. It's a fascist technique to denigrate such folk so their followers will only listen to approved party-spokesmen and not question "Glorious Leader." In this country it was creating an alternative media 25 years ago in Fox and Limbaugh, and in the few cases when those aren't saying what people want to hear, going to more extremist, lying media sources (something called Newsmax?).
Didn't provide any citations or intuitive explanations on why the biological concepts of male and female are wrong. Just appeals to authority, question begging statements, and a weird false equivalence to scientific racism. If you're going to keep publishing this type of content, y'all should change your name to Technocratic American.
Tell you what, it's horrific when a 150-year-old bastion of science journalism is outdone in objectivity by TH-cam COMMENTORS! Oh Sci Am, how far have you sunk?
"gender affirming care" Okay, so how do we "affirm" a gender? There must be some objective definition, on your worldview, that allows some use of terms like "boy" or "girl" to be correct or incorrect. Otherwise you're not affirming anything (and likewise, no one can ever misgender anyone either). So for me to take you seriously as a conduit of scientific research, and for transgenderism in general to begin to make any kind of sense, you'll need to provide an objective definition for these terms we're being told to use in a particular way. Thanks.
If 'gender' and 'sex' are synonymous then "affirming ones gender" would be nonsensical. That would be like asking someone to affirm I had three feet. Your biological sex is not changeable. But generally when people refer to "gender," it is in reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological. That is to say, the identity of the person. This is where it gets complicated because, in the same way we cannot objectively define art in such a way everyone can agree with, there can be no objective definition for something that is inheritely subjective. Here is how I look at it: if a transgender person claims to have changed their biological sex through the use of hormones, different choice of dress, etc, then they are delusional. But if they are simply asking for their identity to be respected (ie: using their preferred pronouns), and can seperate between biological sex and gender, then I cannot find anything objectively wrong with doing so. At this point and time, we are aware that conventional psychotherapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or psychoanalysis don't do anything for gender dysphoria. If you disagree I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
@@dead_protagonist "If 'gender' and 'sex' are synonymous then "affirming ones gender" would be nonsensical." Well that's just the point; it *is* nonsensical. Gender and sex are one and the same, just different words to refer to the same thing. As I may have said, this is why the roles we're expected to play solely based on our biological sex, are called "gender roles". "But generally when people refer to "gender," it is in reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological." Right, they are confusing gender roles and norms with gender itself. "This is where it gets complicated because, in the same way we cannot objectively define art in such a way everyone can agree with, there can be no objective definition for something that is inheritely subjective." The problem is that they push these distinctions as if they *are* objective, then fall back on admitting they're subjective when asked to give an objective definition. They want to say I've "misgendered" a biological male by calling him a man, for example. But it's logically impossible to be correct or incorrect while using terms with no objective definition. In the same way you couldn't say I was incorrect to like one work of art while disliking another, you couldn't say I was incorrect in saying this person is a woman while another person isn't. "But if they are simply asking for their identity to be respected (ie: using their preferred pronouns), and can seperate between biological sex and gender, then I cannot find anything objectively wrong with doing so." But you can't find anything objectively *right* with doing so either, which is why they're wrong to coerce or force it. Furthermore, if I call someone a "man", and we say that sex and gender are different things, how do they know I'm referring to their gender and not their biological sex? I couldn't be misgendering them, if I'm not referring to their gender in the first place, after all. "At this point and time, we are aware that conventional psychotherapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or psychoanalysis don't do anything for gender dysphoria." You say that, but most children who are treated for gender dysphoria overcome it and do not grow up to be trans. Besides which, once you've let this incoherent worldview get to the point of diagnosis by the "experts" (who cannot even define their terms when asked), it may very well be too late. We shouldn't encourage or even allow it to take root in the first place.
@@Vic2point0 Thank you for replying. "Gender and sex are one and the same, just different words to refer to the same thing." While that may have been the case at one point, its modern definition has changed to reflect their distinguishing factors. Regardless, as to avoid turning this into an argument of semantics, when I speak of "gender" I am referring to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men- that including gender norms, roles and relationships between men and women. Even if I am mistaken and they are synonymous, surely you would agree that what I am speaking of is fundamentally different to biological sex. Biological sex is in no way psychological, therefore they cannot be the same. "Right, they are confusing gender roles and norms with gender itself." I speak of the same thing. As I said, transgender people who claim to have changed their biological sex are deluded or misinformed. But my argument is, if they are fully aware of this (that they can only change how they outwardly present and are referred to within society, and that no hormones or surgeries will change their sex) then on what grounds are they deluded or confused? Is it objectively wrong to go against a socially constructed phenomenon? And how can this answer be anything but subjective? "The problem is that they push these distinctions as if they are objective, then fall back on admitting they're subjective when asked to give an objective definition. They want to say I've "misgendered" a biological male by calling him a man, for example. But it's logically impossible to be correct or incorrect while using terms with no objective definition." I agree, but I believe you are conflating two different things. If you simply said "You are a biological male" then you would be in no way incorrect (incendiary perhaps), but if you said "Your sex does not match your gender therefore your identity is incorrect" then you are thinking subjectively and not objectively. I also find your argument (that it is impossible to misgender someone because each individual has their own gender identity) to be flawed. I will explain in a second. "In the same way you couldn't say I was incorrect to like one work of art while disliking another, you couldn't say I was incorrect in saying this person is a woman while another person isn't." Then following this logic, you would agree that if a biological male were to say they socially identified as a woman, they would not be incorrect? But I find this to be a faulty comparision. The reason why there cannot be an objective definition of art is because it changes with the individuals preferences. That is not to say there IS no definition. If I were to say "You only enjoy surreal art," I would (most likely) be incorrect because I am forcing my definition of art onto you, while others may still agree with me. That does not mean you are wrong. I can only create my own definition and have it be respected, as others are free to do the same. So if a person preferred to identify as a female, and you referred to them as a male, then you would be forcing your subjective definition (that pronouns refer to the sex of the person rather the gender) onto them, and saying they are wrong for thinking otherwise. And they are probably forcing their subjective definition onto you as well. Neither are "correct" or "wrong." I would like to talk more about this soon. "But you can't find anything objectively right with doing so either, which is why they're wrong to coerce or force it." But what is "objectively right?" Who decides this? There are no objective moral obligations to do anything. In the end, whether or not you choose to affirm one's chosen gender comes down to your personal moral code. As a moral subjectivist, morality is decided by the individual. Objectivism has nothing to do with it, at least from what I can see. I personally would not go out of my way to misgender someone because to me that is morally wrong and needlessly provocative, but you may disagree and that is fine. Please explain how they are coercing or forcing their identities onto others. "Furthermore, if I call someone a "man", and we say that sex and gender are different things, how do they know I'm referring to their gender and not their biological sex? I couldn't be misgendering them, if I'm not referring to their gender in the first place, after all." Correct, but only if you can be sure of their biological sex. But how do you determine this? Anatomy? Voice? Body type? Do you make them undress in front of you? All can be altered with hormones/surgery/prosthetics. It seems you choose a pronoun based on their gender presentation. "You say that, but most children who are treated for gender dysphoria overcome it and do not grow up to be trans." Besides which, once you've let this incoherent worldview get to the point of diagnosis by the "experts" (who cannot even define their terms when asked), it may very well be too late. We shouldn't encourage or even allow it to take root in the first place." Where can I find these statistics? I believe you, but I want to be sure I have the correct information. And please explain how it is an incoherent worldview from an objective standpoint.
@@dead_protagonist "when I speak of "gender" I am referring to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men- that including gender norms, roles and relationships between men and women." Which is, again, confusing gender roles and norms (which include the roles and norms involved in relationships between men and women) with gender itself. I will not go along with that. Besides which, another problem you run into in defining gender that way is as follows: If I adhere to the gender roles and norms of a woman... but identify as a man, what will trans people and trans advocates call me? Well, they'll still call me a man. So you see, the most intellectually honest definition anyone can give for "woman" is the circular and subjective "someone who identifies as a woman". "But my argument is, if they are fully aware of this (that they can only change how they outwardly present and are referred to within society, and that no hormones or surgeries will change their sex) then on what grounds are they deluded or confused?" Well this is part of why some of them have taken to describing themselves not as "men" and "women" but as "trans men" and "trans women", respectively. In those cases, the delusion is still that they insist that those of us who call them "women" and "men" are incorrect. But that's logically impossible, to be incorrect using terms that have no objective definition. "Is it objectively wrong to go against a socially constructed phenomenon?" That's not what transgenderism does. An example of going against a socially constructed phenomenon would be a woman (who identifies as a woman) saying, "I'm not going to be a stay at home mom who cooks and cleans, but I'm going to enter the UFC instead". "If you simply said "You are a biological male" then you would be in no way incorrect (incendiary perhaps), but if you said "Your sex does not match your gender therefore your identity is incorrect" then you are thinking subjectively and not objectively." Well again, I maintain that everyone's sex *does* match their gender, since they're one and the same. But even saying "your sex doesn't match your 'gender identity'", I would be basing it on objectively real criteria. That's what's meant by "objective definition". ME: "In the same way you couldn't say I was incorrect to like one work of art while disliking another, you couldn't say I was incorrect in saying this person is a woman while another person isn't." YOU: "Then following this logic, you would agree that if a biological male were to say they socially identified as a woman, they would not be incorrect?" They wouldn't be incorrect with that exact statement. But they'd be incoherent to claim that it's *true* that they are a woman, since they wouldn't be able to give an objective definition for "woman" (or "man" for that matter). "So if a person preferred to identify as a female, and you referred to them as a male, then you would be forcing your subjective definition (that pronouns refer to the sex of the person rather the gender) onto them," Why does this only work one way? Why wouldn't you say *they're* forcing *their* subjective definition onto *me?* Especially in light of the fact that they *are* trying to force it on me, because they want to control what words I use. They get angry if I continue to use words my way. I'm not telling them that they can't walk around calling themselves a woman/female (even though I can give objective definitions for these terms), but they're wanting to go so far as to call my use of words "hate speech" or "discrimination" in a legal sense. "And they are probably forcing their subjective definition onto you as well." Not "probably". You were quick to say I was forcing it, you should be equally quick to throw that on those who are literally forcing it. "But what is "objectively right?" Who decides this?" It's not something decided but discovered. And one of the ways we discover that is through discussions like this one. "There are no objective moral obligations to do anything." I strongly disagree. You don't find that we're morally obligated, say, to not torture little children for fun? "I personally would not go out of my way to misgender someone-" Again, not logically possible to misgender anyone, on transgenderism. If there is no objective standard by which someone qualifies as a "man" or "woman", you cannot ever be correct or incorrect while using these terms. "because to me that is morally wrong" But if you don't believe that morality is objective, then the phrase "morally wrong" is meaningless. It's just referring to "I don't like it". So you shouldn't say for instance "Killing someone is morally wrong". You should say "I don't like it when someone's killed". And of course, the obvious response will be "So what?" "Correct, but only if you can be sure of their biological sex." Wouldn't have to be sure, only correct. And are you conceding that if I called, say, Elliot Page a woman I wouldn't be misgendering her? "It seems you choose a pronoun based on their gender presentation." Sure, if it's thorough enough, it can be deceiving. Just like a competently forged certificate of a law degree. But if I hang such a certificate on my wall, I'm still not a lawyer, no matter how many people are fooled into thinking I am one. "Where can I find these statistics?" TH-cam is really bad about deleting comments when I post links, but if you google "pubmed 25231780" it should bring a link up to an abstract of a study which reads, "On the subject of treating children, however, as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health notes in their latest Standards of Care, gender dysphoria in childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood, and only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood. Further, most of the boys' gender dysphoria desisted, and in adulthood, they identified as gay rather than as transgender."
Children deserve love, respect, and attention, they aren't idiots, they can choose who they want to be There is a misconception of how hormones are given to people, or even how this procedure begins No one is forcing them to do it, that's an extremist and transphobic fantasy
@@milliabea Children are not idiots. They are not responsible enough and lack maturity to make some desicions that later on they can regret. And this talking about irreversible actions. And what is an extremist and ridiculous fantasy is to want to make every children be referred as non binary. 😂 Then... Weren't they capable enough to decide what they wanted?
@@milliabea No, kids can choose who they want to be (gender wise) once they are adults. They are not idiots but they are fickle and change their minds often from year to year before they mature. Are you a parent?
@@milliabea children are in fact idiots and it takes adults to educate them. If kids weren't idiots then why would I need to present ID at Walmart to buy epoxy glue??? If a kid can't be trusted with glue why should they be trusted with sex. Not to mention it's groomers like this video that teach kids they can change their sex anyhow even though that's an obvious LIE
Totally oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the Brown Univ. study. Read the original and the "corrected" (essentially the same). If anything, the additional contributors lend support.
The avalanche of aggressive pressure from the ideologues led to an extremely minor "correction" that in no way diminished the main finding of the study was the overwhelming influence of social contagion and peer pressure in the sudden sharp rise of "trans"-identifying young women and teenage girls.
Sci Am: “Here’s what you need to know…” History Professor: “Here’s my opinion about why trans science has been junk, right, and I hope you’ll *Trust Me, Bro* because of how confident I sound, right, even though I constantly imply that I need or deserve your agreement by using ‘right’ as a filler word, right, while neither I nor the channel publishing this interview will actually CITE my sources so that the audience, right, could analyze them independently.” Audience: 😳
It's a shame to see Sci Am, a magazine I've read and trusted for years, sink to this. This is an issue of politics, or sociology. It is absolutely not a medical issue, or if it is, it's a mental health one. And apparently Sci Am are campaigning on behalf of treating mental illness with surgery. This is a horrible mess, how did Sci Am get dragged into it?
@@SailaSobriquet > not in a way that is derogatory to sociology as a discipline No, it's more of an insult to society itself. A (good) sociologist just has to observe it.
What’s the distinction between a child that thinks they are the opposite sex and a child that thinks they’re an adult? Nothing, they both think what the adults around them are telling them.
I’d like to know where in Gray’s Anatomy they define male and female with respect to “gender identity”. The general argument for “gender identity” also justifies “racial identity”. So Scientific American should produce a video supporting, validating and affirming “racial identity”, such as Rachel Dolezal’s trans racial identity and Oli London’s trans racial identity. Rebecca Tuvel wrote one of the most controversial academic papers of the last 20 years precisely for supporting Dolezal and transgender and trans racial identities. So if scientific American doesn’t affirm Dolezal’s trans racial identity, they are transphobic.
@@ursussy dodging the issue. Read Rebecca Tuvel’s scholarly paper on transrace and transgender. The paper came out long before tiktok. The fact is “gender” is pseudoscience. Sex is objective science. Everything you call “gender” has been known for thousands of years as sex-based stereotypes. Stereotypes exist and you can choose to defy them. But these are SEX-based stereotypes. You are fooled by the wishy washy gender unicorn pseudoscience ideology. You are logically committed to the preposterous notions of trans race and trans species. Your psychological illness is characterized by a lack of acknowledgement of reality. You find reality to be offensive to you. That’s very sad. But the reality is there is only sex and sex based stereotypes. Defying the stereotype doesn’t make you the opposite sex. Dress how you want, it doesn’t change your sex.
> I’d like to know where in Gray’s Anatomy they define male and female with respect to “gender identity”. What does psychology have to do with anatomy? 🤔
IKR? When I was young, my mum's friends made an effort to let their children play with whichever toys they liked. A lad I knew wanted a miniature kitchen on wheels that you could pretend to cook on, it had a sink, etc. You know what that made him? A boy with a kitchen. 80 years ago, a boy wouldn't be allowed a kitchen, because of sexism. 40 years ago it would have been fine. But NOW, not only is a kitchen a "girl's toy" again, wanting one actually MAKES you a girl! Just before anything else, isn't that incredibly SEXIST? There's no toy a boy can play with that makes him a girl, because toys are just toys and people are people. If he really wants to wear a dress (and I mean HIM, REALLY, not his demented Histrionic or Muchausen's By Proxy, or other Type B Personality Disorder mother, who wants the attention and praise that garners from certain quarters), then let him. Let kids and adults wear what the hell they want, otherwise is sexist. Let them play and work and whatever else. But there are still sex-based differences and sex-based rights and that includes things like privacy and the right to be naked and vulnerable, where that's necessary, in a changing room only with your own sex. It feels like a bunch of kids and I dunno what, think they've discovered "Not Being Sexist", but are doing it all wrong and fucked up, that they're so *innately* sexist that they can't help but implement it sexistly. So they're concentrating only on surface features, and doing it backwards. There's so many problems with this. There are so many messed-up adults, and even cruel adults, in the world, and sadly plenty of them are parents. It's society's duty to protect kids, who are otherwise helpless, from harm at the hands of these demented people. Fortunately it doesn't have to happen a lot, but where it does, it's vital. Where they're not demented, they might be well-meaning but simply doing what they think is right, in ignorance, in the face of great social pressure and kids who have been told to threaten suicide by online groomers, or "egg hatchers", on online forums, Reddit and Discord. The trans movement has been quick to stuff as much of their rhetoric in to the public's brain-hole as they can. As fast and as much and as self-serving, doesn't even matter what it really says in detail, in fact a broad impression is better!
@@Vic2point0 that’s real science too. I’m sure using a self reported survey over a 2 month span to show that they didn’t change their minds after 2 months lol
I’m trying to see both sides here… the expert is saying that sex and gender aren’t different, but aren’t they literally by definition? I don’t think anyone said trans people ‘made it up’ I feel like the entire point is being missed?
Gender is someone’s psychological perspective of their sex, that is all. The identity is socially formed. It matches sex 99.4 percent of the time so it’s genetic in itself Gender incongruence is psychological
Gender has been re-defined modernly to account for the feelings and experiences of the gender dysphoric. It now has a new meaning which equates not to biological sex but more to social constructs. It does not change the original meaning but just adds a new meaning to the word. It is common for words to embody more than one concept.
Gender Dysmorphia is real but the surgical treatment of a psychological disorder is irrational and unproven. We don’t do pre frontal lobotomies anymore either.
This video baffles me...the entire transgender science and research violates many of the basic scientific method of control groups and unbiased experiments at its core. What worried me the most is when academics and professors write papers suggesting that more research needs to be done on some questions that may be contrary to the transgender movement, such as investigating the role of peer pressure in childhood development...they find themselves at odds or in trouble and even discouraged by the very universities which they are employed...
Why was only this one Doctor interviewed? Why was only a person who is allin on trans identity interviewed? How much of this doctors funding is from Pro-trans studies? Follow the money and you can follow the science.
You mean have a debate? Please, platforming questions about science is not science. I affirm whatever people think and I hope scientists continue to give self reported surveys that legitimize political ideology.
@@kw2080 So you are not allowed to question Science? First of all you have to ask, it this really "Science" or is it a personal or political opinion. And rule one in science is "Question Everything"
It's interesting that, with increasing trans inclusivity and wider societal acceptance, gender dysmorphia is disproportionately increasing among the youngest demographics as opposed to oldest demographics. Particularly when the hypothesis is that trans people always existed but were otherwise suppressed. You'd expect to see a similar trend among all demographics, including among those with differing cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Though the rate of increase does seem to be a uniquely anglosphere phenomenon. Perhaps there are environmental variables influencing gender dysmorphia outcomes such as media, education, laissez-faire parenting approaches, absent parent(s), peer conformity, mental illness and social pressures. Studies incidentally into additional factors that challenge the scientific consensus that the dysmorphia is biological (which itself has extremely weak supporting publications that regularly conflate exceptional intersex cases which is exactly what this 'researcher' does)... Never receive funding. Were it, hypothetically, one day found that there was a correlation and dare say causation between such variables and gender dysmorphia... Should the research and funding be allowed no matter how controversial among social justice types... Would the scientific treatment consensus still be to affirm a patient's chosen gender identity? Or to discourage, address the underlying causes behind the dysmorphia both in the patient and the increasing rates among young people with the view that it is now treatable and preventable? It's an interesting question, though I doubt we'll ever be allowed to know.
The actual doctors and scientists overwhelmingly support gender-affirming treatment for trans children(within reasons, you'll almost never find a doctor advocating sex reassignments for children) and have done so for decades, long before the current spotlight was being shined so heavily on the trans community. As for a disproportionate percentage of minors identifying as trans, it is true that it is more common for younger people to identify as trans, but the percentage is still a tiny minority compared to those that identify as cisgender. This can be, and among sociologists usually is, attributed to the more progressive and open minded attitudes of Gen Z as well as the increasing visibility and exposure of trans people in society which normalizes transness and makes younger people more comfortable identifying with it. Are there minors who identify as trans at one point only to realize later that they're actually cis? Of course, and that's a big reason why doctors don't prescribe the same type of gender affirming care to them as they do adults. Typically trans minors are only allowed to take hormone blockers which delay the onset of puberty, until they're around 16-18 when they're started on testosterone or estrogen supplements on top of the blockers. This is because the delayed onset of puberty caused by hormone blockers is fully reversible and causes no lasting effects to a child if they choose to stop taking them. But conservative media don't mention any of that, because it doesn't fit with their narrative that the evil, mentally ill, groomers are forcing children to get sex changes.
@@Arinisonfire With all due respect, that doesn't seek to answer the question, and instead explains the current prescribed treatment plans for trans individuals and ends on a critique of opposition. The research isn't there and it has been hamstrung both within the scientific community and among special interest groups both advocating the gender affirming status quo and challenging it. Even innocuous studies, such as... Is someone assigned at birth male more predisposed to gender dysmorphia, particularly male to female, in the absence of either a male role model or male parental figure during critical stages of childhood development? Same vice versa, in the absence of a female role model or female parental figure. Furthermore, are these individuals more predisposed to gender dysmorphia if they grow up in single parent families than not? We don't know the answer to those three questions. If we did, then we'd know if parental approaches and absent parents are a variable in trans outcomes. If they are? That contradicts the scientific consensus that gender dysmorphia is biological or at least wholly biological, which again, only operates on the conflation between exceptional intersex cases and the wider trans community. Which we know is shaky because not everyone that is trans is intersex. Does that mean the scientific community should or would suddenly stop affirming gender? No. It might still be the best treatment outcome for those with gender dysmorphia. But could it mean that it could be prevented? Possibly. Possibly not. But more importantly it would further explain why some countries and cultures with less divorce rates and more of a conservative or conservatively religious focus on the nuclear family aren't experiencing similarly increasing rates among young people compared to anglosphere countries. And that would broaden our understanding. Though it won't be allowed, because the topic isn't just scientific or medical. It is political.
@@Arinisonfire if a child Transitions and then realizes that they're cis then isn't that a problem? Shouldn't they have known that what they identify as was legitimate? Are people just going around making mistakes and then finding out that they are not what they identified as? Is there any verifiable source that can confirm that what a person has identified as is accurate outside of that own individual? And there is no such thing as completely reversible. Every pharmaceutical grade drug has side effects. Short-term and long-term.
I'll give you any credibility when you also point the statistics about regret and suicide of those that took the most extreme path of transition, perceiving that changing the gender wouldn't instantaneous fix their psychological problems as expected, since they are rooted on more complex aspects mostly involved in their formation years during youth. Junk science goes both ways you know.
Since you are making this claim, can you provide any evidence for it? I wanted to find out more, and a brief search on my end showed a meta-study of 27 studies which found, out of the 7,928 transgender patients included, that “The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS (gender-affirmation surgeries) was 1% (95% CI
The study I've seen concludes decreased suicide ideation among trans adolescents that received pubertal suppressants vs those that wanted it but didn't get it. See PubMed. Where is the study backing your assertion to the contrary ?
@@infinitemonkey917 It's true. I've seen a few of these studies. But you have to take into consideration that these studies haven't been conducted on the new generations of trans. In the UK for instance, in the last decade or so, seemingly because it is debated widely, cases of transition have raised by 3000%. We will have to see what happens next. I personally do believe there are real, hard cases. I'm not sure this politicization is good for kids, though. At least, I'm not sure it will be good for all of them.
Fun fact in Sweden they actually did legalize transitioning for kids and puberty blockers and surgery. Years later, multiple people(mainly biological girls) who transitioned as teen developed depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies and regret. After that puberty blockers and anything involved with transitioning on a medical level became illegal to pre adults
@Jacki Steeneck as a adult, I don’t care what other adults do. I’m against alcohol but don’t care if anyone drinks, I don’t think you should be able to buy a gun unless you’re an adult, get a tattoo, etc because they’re adults who can recognize the danger or risks of whatever action they’re partaking in. Kids and teens cannot.
@Jacki Steeneck funny you think it’s that hard when there are cases where after one visit, just one psychiatrist, you can be told that your parents should put you on puberty blockers and hormones (all of which has side affects obviously, even biological men taking testosterone can have negative side effects) and not be told that these are permanent, untested, and harmful. I’m well aware you “need consent” from the parents to the point it’s considered child abuse. I recommend looking at the Swedish u-turn
this is why Jordan peterson predicts in about 15years there will be lot s of lawsuits against the medical community for children who transitioned now ..th e same thing will happne here !!
Ok, can you define what is a woman? What would be written on a dictionary next to the word? That's legally very important, we need a clear definition. We can't have rules without words that aren't clearly defined.
It depends. Biology defines - for sexually reproducing species - that sex as "female" that produces the ovum. It's a total arbitrary definition. All else varies. Gender on the other hand is learned and subject to change. Sex and gender are very complex once you start digging deeper. I recommend looking up various national and international agencies and organizations for their definitions. You then get an idea how complicated sex and gender are from medical, social, psychological, historical and legal perspectives.
@@susanne5803 Lots of paradoxes in what you just wrote, Su sanne. If gender is learned and subject to change, it therefore means that transsexuals could be "treated" and change. But the best documented cases show kids feeling they belong to the other "sex" at an age that makes it impossible for them to have learned. Also, if it's the case, it means that it's essentially a whim, not something deep. What is learned can be unlearned. Transsexuals show exactly the opposite. Also, saying that a female produces an ovum is certainly not arbitrary. It might be only one element, but it's objectively demonstrable, as well as to show that a male produces its own gamete. There's nothing arbitrary there. The choice might be if you limit yourself at it. But not in itself. Your rationalization on this, on the other hand, is arbitrary. It's a choice. A political choice. Because in social sciences, you think everything is. Which is totally absurd. That's why people are criticizing the clip. It's not science.
@@P4r4k I don't know if sex is biologically fluid in humans. Aspects certainly are. Gender certainly seems to be fluid. But as regards law: each specific case pertaining to sex and/or gender needs a specific definition. A war crime for example is cutting off young women's breast so that they can never again feed their own children. For the court suing the perpetrators we need a definition for "woman" which doesn't depend on women to have breasts, to lactate and to nurse. For a long time doctors surgically changed the appearance of intersex children to belong clearly to the categories "female" or "male". If a person appearing as a "woman" found out they had intersex gonads inside and couldn't have children and they sue the doctors who never told them - how do we legally define their sex? The doctors' lawyers would try to define the intersex person as "woman". The intersex person's lawyers would define their sex as "intersex" and maybe their gender as "female". The same intersex person has been in a marriage with a man (appearing as and defining himself as a "man"). This guy can't cope with the news that his wife was born intersex and they can't have children. He beats her/them up. She/they sue him. Now the husband's lawyers might define the wife as "intersex" and claim their client was deceived. The wife's lawyers might define her/them as "woman" because neither she/they nor he were aware of her/them being anything else during courtship, wedding and marriage. In one case one definition is more useful in another case another definition. That doesn't change anything about the person. Consider it highlighting certain aspects of this person.
@@frankarouet Gender is learned and subject to change across history and during the lifetime of an individual person. In the first half of your argument you confuse "sex" and "gender". That's why your argument falls apart. As to the definition: The definition of the ovum producing being as "female" was totally arbitrary. Some people sat around a table at a point in history and decided that ovum producing would henceforward be considered "female". They could have considered it "male". Equally valid decision. The semantical definition is arbitrary. Translation to simple English: it's a word. Not the biological fact that one of the two beings in sexually reproducing species is producing an ovum, if physiology permits. An ovum is a visible tangible fact. In simple English: it's nature. The words we apply to nature are arbitrary results of use and traditions. As nicely shown by the multitude of languages spoken by humans. The meaning of words becomes fuzzy at the edges. We mostly agree on green and blue. But there's an area where some people would call a colour "blueish" and some people would call the same colour "greenish". Same with sex and gender. We usually easily agree on "sexually woman" and "sexually man" or "female behaviour" and "male behaviour". But what about the person who looks naked like a guy and we learn they have a uterus additionally to male gonades by nature? Some people would call this person "male" some would call them "intersex". What about the person looking naked like a woman behaving as we expect a woman in our society to behave and getting to know her we learn she is since many years transsexual and her scars are undetectable at first glance. I and some people would call her "woman". Some people would call her "trans woman". And some people would call her "man". She herself might call herself "woman". Yet if she needs a medical procedure she will make sure the doctors know she was born "male" - because she may have slightly different risks and need slightly different medication. What about the man who was born a man, is comfortable being a man, behaves like our society expects a man to behave - yet consistently wears womans' clothing, jewelry and female types of makeup. What do we call this person? A "man", a "woman", a "transvestite", a "crossdresser"? What does this person call themselves? So the fringes of our definitions of sex and gender, "woman and man" "female and male" are blurring and fuzzy. As with all our words and their meanings. (Ever had an argument with a logic specialist or a mathematician about the meaning of "and"?!) In a sexual reproducing species science needs to call the two beings something. They might have gone for "A and B" instead of "female and male" for all I care.
This is garbage. No facts given. Not even a reasonable discussion of their findings. If someone is going to make a claim that there is "junk science" then they better be prepared to give an example of intelligent documentation and benchmarks. Next time they should make an effort.
Shaming counter position studies for not having been peer reviewed recently while quoting your own studies from the 1950s. How are the John Money twins doing?
Change your username OP "pseudoscientific American" or "opoid crisis edition 2: supporter american" works better maybe "pharmaceutical industry thug American"
LOL... learn what appeal to authority is. Now go fact check what was said vs. the reality of modern biology and psychology. What you really meant to say I'd you're pleased facts had no impact on the beliefs of many
@@rugbyguy59 Most of the arguments presented were appeals to authorities. In fairness what my snarky comment conceals is that the authorities were qualified, so it's not a fallacy, but it's still a weak method of arguing, also adding that nuance would have spoiled my comment. Sorry for being a wanker.
Surgeries shouldn’t be offered to minors. That’s not an attack on there views or rights. We don’t let children vote that’s a right. It’s sad this is even in question. It’s an irreversible life changing decision. It has nothing to do with there rights. It’s fucked to use your views to push this on kids. What is worse? letting someone one change there life forever? or making them wait to change there life forever? Stop acting like this isn’t that simple.
When someone disagrees with you, is it really helpful to use the word "work"? Just seems that the conservatives have to use the word without knowing what it really means.
These poor poor souls have a dysphoria over their body much like bulimia & body dysmorphia. They need to be coached through their condition, desensitized to their symptoms, reconditioned. Your physiology is you, it's your body & it's impossible to be born in the wrong body & mutilating a perfectly good healthy body isn't medicine, it's barbaric & absurd.
@@dimetronome do you know what the scientific method is? Then there is also the inherent bias of peer review. I refer you to Lindsay and Boghossian who exposed the pitfalls of peer review. The beauty of the scientific method is its evidential basis and the fact that there are no absolutes. Having said that identity politics is firmly based in the social sciences not the natural sciences and therein lies the issue. The gender movement is not scientific and it’s influence is just another expression of postmodernism. On a street level it’s a pathway for mediocre (at best) students who graduated with meaningless degrees to make money on mainstream and social media. How intellectually dishonest.
@@ralphlong9443 yes, I know what the scientific method is and I understand the differences between the natural sciences and social sciences. I was simply disagreeing with simetra’s claim that Scientific American is “junk science.” You can disagree with the video for political reasons, but it seems like a huge stretch to say it’s “junk science.”
Scientific American used to be a very reputable scientific magazine. That is no longer the case, as far as I’m concerned you might as well be picking up vogue, the level of scientific professionalism is just about the same.
Unbelievable! Here I was honestly wanting to hear the other side's arguments and found a pit of void. Junk... Peterson... junk... blah... Peterson. That's not the way you fight for a cause... better yet, let's forget the fight word, because it is really uninteresting, ... this is not a way to make a point whatsoever. I got nothing from this! Really, really disappointed, because... well... SCIENTIFIC American, right? My mistake... misinterpreted the word 😔
They really cited John Money who probably claimed his theory was correct even though his test subject is the exact opposite of that.
Because of his failed experiment that proves something in the end : you can't force someone to a different gender Identity, even from at birth.
@@Anverse-14 jazz Jennings is a recent experiment
Not to mention that they used deceitful arguments to phrase their opposition's side of the argument. What I heard essentially is "We're arguing for science and everyone against us is "Attacking Trans-Children"".
You can argue against an ideology without attacking a child. Using deceitful tactics like this speaks volumes about the people using them.
Subject(s). It wasn’t just the Reimer’s. He had other subjects that also committed not-alive.
That's how you recognize real "junk science". But now, "junk scientists" control the academia.
At least they don't shut off the comment section. That's something..
Lol. You are right!
For now.
TH-cam does that not the person with the video.
@@michaelfox3486perhaps, but TH-camrs can also disable comments. I know because I did it by mistake once.
Imagine thinking john money is real science
He's (((science)))
@@dattru science for goys
„He’s a pedologist ya bigot!”
Science is saying sex change goes against millions of years of mammal evolution
That one is burning in hell for what he did for the Reimer boys
John Money and Alfred Kinsey are monsters
we're talking about science now.
@@Free-leftistaction They are not scientists, they were greedy clowns in doctor’s clothing.
@@ALJ9000 I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT KINSEY AND MONEY. I'M TALKING ABOUT MODERN DAY RESEARCH
@@Free-leftistaction Sorry, I typically think spammers are in support of the illogical side.
In what way did you mean by modern research?
@@ALJ9000 Research that has come out within the last 10 years. It actually reifies gender affirming care.
Go ahead and claim that mainstream academics cherry pick data, and then cite an absolute monster quack. wtf
During the twin’s psychiatric visits with Money, and as part of his research, Reimer and his twin brother were directed to inspect one another’s genitals and engage in behavior resembling sexual intercourse. Reimer claimed that much of Money’s treatment involved the forced reenactment of sexual positions and motions with his brother. In some exercises, the brothers rehearsed missionary positions with thrusting motions, which Money justified as the rehearsal of healthy childhood sexual exploration. In his Rolling Stone interview, Reimer recalled that at least once, Money photographed those exercises. Money also made the brothers inspect one another’s pubic areas. Reimer stated that Money observed those exercises both alone and with as many as six colleagues. Reimer recounted anger and verbal abuse from Money if he or his brother resisted orders, in contrast to the calm and scientific demeanor Money presented to their parents.
Relevance? One person being a monster doesn’t mean that science is against transgender people
Money was mentally disturbed d and had no business being around children he belonged in a psychiatric ward or jail.
@@aleciavasquez3677 this doesn’t change the fact that actual scientists & real science supports trans people
Sick.
John Money did not invent trans people
Did she say that in the 1950s they had no idea what made people male or female… chromosomes, gonads, etc…
What on earth?
Sounds like this video is junk science
Yeah lol… wtf?
You're supposed to take whatever they say as fact or you're a bigot🤔
We still don’t know what a male or female is. Thus far, playing with dolls and wearing a dress at 3 years old seems to be the best indicator of real science but who knows really. We may never know.
@@kw2080 with your logic we don't know what anything is in the world. Why do you think we've we made up names for almost every single thing? To easily identify what is observed. These words and their definitions have meaning, use, and purpose. Something that is lacking in this new age Dogma
Of couse john money comes up. Something ia seriously wrong with anyone who refers to him as a source.
what are you talking about he was the real pseudo scientist
Someone should make a video on Economics and cite Hitler.
I mean, he did taught us that conversion therapy doesn't work and it's fact child abuse
They actually cite John money!! 🤣
For real... that's insane.
Inevitably Money's research is always sited. But they don't question the validity of it because it affirms their stance. One only needs to understand who Money was and his motives to see that is extremely flawed
@@jorgecea4473 Sometimes immoral science is the best way to figure shit out, the reason why our medicine is so good now is because of horrid fucking experiments going on during WW2 with the nazis and communists.
Also weirdly enough, without nazism in the 1930s we wouldn't have space travel, strange how the worst type of people the world has ever seen pushed us so far in scientific advancment, but they were all terrible people either way. So I think immoral science should still be a thing from time to time.
@@jorgecea4473 I will always remember John Money as the man that killed an entire family, and got away with it. He is responsible for the destruction of Bruce’s entire family and the inevitable deaths of the two brothers.
Not to come off as a holier than thou Christian, but I know for a fact that unless he truly repents for his actions against that family, he will be damned by God for all of eternity.
@@jorgecea4473 I know all too well his motives and his methods.
It’s disgusting that they worship the man even after he did those terrible things
Ironic somebody studying history of science at Johns Hopkins doesn't seem to know that JH had some of the earliest gender clinics, and did the earliest sex change operations. Then, after years, they concluded that surgery wasn't helping, their patients were mentally no better off, or worse, after "transitioning". So in 1979 they stopped offering surgery, and concentrated instead on treating their patient's mental needs, helping them come to terms with, and manage life, as their actual sex. Paul McHugh, former Chief Of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, played a big part in that change.
So "helping" children, who aren't mentally mature enough to vote, get married, work, sign a contract, and indeed do much other than ride bikes and go to school, to have irreversible surgery and hormones, because they think they're the wrong sex, is horrific. It absolutely should be prevented. This is not "accessing healthcare". There is nothing wrong with these children's physical health. They're mentally ill, or just being socially influenced, and that needs addressing.
There is so, so, so much stuff underlying this issue, that transgender advocates like to keep buried, and keep out of public discussion with cheap and easy slurs and accusations. Against people who really do care about children. In the last few years there's been an epidemic, especially among teenage girls, of "transgenderism". I very much doubt that they're all innately boys, and that girls in previous generations simply never realised it, and now live happily as women, unaware of the chance they missed out on to be their "true selves".
This is an express train and it AT LEAST needs slowing down and examining. That's a statement of concern stemming from compassion, love, not hate.
Dr Paul McHugh wrote this article on the subject "Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme" - www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/
[Interesting factoid: The founder of that University was actually called Johns Hopkins. His first name was "Johns"! ]
Great article. Thanks
@@MargotSolanas It is, isn't it? Please share it! And Dr McHugh wrote it in 2015, arguably before things had got as bad with medicalising kids, with people so keen to give them "access to" drugs and surgery.
Trans advocates claim that "puberty blockers" (off-label chemotherapy drugs) allow a child to grow up without having to go through puberty, then decide on an artificial puberty by taking hormones. The problem is, that kids don't just mature up to adults by themselves, like boiling an egg for 3 minutes.
Puberty is what MAKES you grown-up! Puberty is painful, exciting, embarassing, challenging. You go through all sorts of experiences and feelings, and figure out ways of dealing with them. That's becoming an adult. So an 18 year old who hasn't been through puberty, is an 18-year-old child. Or 21, or whatever age. They haven't had crushes, felt love, felt alienated and angry and the beginning of adult friendship. They don't have the maturity to decide for themselves on puberty, because puberty GIVES them the maturity. I'm sure we can all identify with that idea.
Firstly, transness is not about thinking that you were born the wrong sex, but that your internal perception of yourself does not coincide with who you are in society or in your body, this can be related to sex or it can be related to something deeper. In addition, dysphoria can only concern certain parts of your body without affecting others, which is why not all trans people fully make a medical transition, because for trans people, being them is not about conforming to society's opinion of what a man is and what a woman is. For them, some parts of their body are not perceived as related to male or female identity, but as just separate organs that they have, someone can consider themselves as a woman with a penis, for example. Secondly, there is a lot of actual studies that supports gender affirming care and the existing of gender identity as a part of people nature and not just psychology or thoughts, there is a biological aspect to it.
I also think that trans kids need to have access to social transition and puberty blockers, that's something kids can be allowed to do, deeper changes really aren't appropriate for kids, but they have every right to puberty blockers and social transition.
@n1kogrindraws447 You should be in a 4x4 cell for the rest of your life.
You do know that the fact that John Money's freak experiments were thoroughly unsuccessful and resulted in a double self-deletion is common knowledge, right?
He was a sadist and child abuser.
@@cockoffgewgle4993the ironic thing is he was praised by the trans community between 70s and 2002
In 2002 he received the lgbt magnus heirshfield award and later that year David reimer too his life
That started the back lash from intersex groups.
Just actual history
@@ryanthomas9306 Lies. Lies. Lies.
we're talking about science now.
@@Free-leftistactionit’s literally fact
Human Biology is 'Junk Science'. Bold stance.
A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. - Paul Simon #pflag
Like race, gender is socially and culturally constructed. Sex is based on biology.
@@dimetronome Nope, they even claim sex is a social construct and twist it in every way imaginable. As for gender, it's obviously tied to sex. When more than 99% of people's gender align with their sex, maybe we shouldn't use the 0,5% left to define norms.
@@_blank-_ Yeah, gender is definitely a social construct, but to argue that sex is also a social construct is ridiculous.
@@dimetronome it's ridiculous at all
You are ridiculous person
You didn't study advanced biological sciences that's why you don't how much biology is complicated not simple like male or female
Sex is spectrum 🍭🍭🍭🌈🌈🌈🌈
Just like electromagnetic radiations
It’s sad how politics are more important that science and knowledge these days
I agree. This video is clearly politically biased and ironically “junk science”
@@albertfralinger2711 Have you actually read the science? It's not remotely junk; there are quite a few high-quality, long-term studies out there on this topic. They're not at all hard to find via search engine.
@@jfm14 Well you don't need a PhD to know that gender dysphoria is not contagious nor is it a kind of disability. It is not as if you could examined this gender identity with any medical device to find it anywhere in the human anatomy such as in the bloodstream or lungs.
@@jfm14 can you cite one robust study that would undoubtedly convince me ?
@@jfm14 I’m going to k1ll myself unless you give me 1 million dollars. Do I sound mentally ill? Now replace that with give me a sex change. Apparently scientists now say I’m perfectly sane
This video: "We dont really know what makes someone a man or a woman" and questions whether we can approach this issue biologically.
*meanwhile, trans people literally take hormones and surgeries to physically match with the sex they would've preferred to have been born into*
Also there are sex differences in brain morphology that are also present in transgender people, so saying that gender is based on sex/biology is not transphobic either
You cannot scan a brain and know what sex the person is.
Precisely. This topic is ultimately avoided by transphobes and no answer can be provided because it demolishes the main strawman of transgender people allegedly "denying that biological sex exists". We do not deny it. Despite gender itself being partually, somethimes overly, dependent on culture, almost everybody awknoledges some fundamental differences in the reproductive biology and neurophysiology of all AMAB/AFAB people influenced by genes and hormones. Else there would be no reason to take hormones and have surgery instead of simply socially transitioning ; trans brains are different in a similar way cis men's and women's are - else there would be no real reason for intense persistent bodily dysphoria that doesn't get alleviated by simply changing gender roles.
Your last paragraph is confusing. There's is difference between a male and a female brain and there are not transgender brains.
We are almost a year in to this and nothings changed. Protect trans kids the very kids who can't make decisions about alcoholic consumption, drive, vote, and buy cigarettes.
@@dkvitaleme You can drive on your own from 16 though
No citations, no statistics, no studies, and no refutation of the so-called "junk" studies. Just a dude with a squeaky voice who hardly passes as a woman lecturing us how we're racist for some reason.
Nope, definitely no conflict of interest going on. No-sir-ee
Yep. Agree. I'm very disappointed with Scientific American for this piece of garbage video.
Pure attempt at bending science in a political way. These people come from social "sciences", which is the real pseudo science. Unfortunately, they manage to have a very important influence on real sciences. And the proof is here: why is Scientific American putting this garbage on its channel?
Bro I thought we were here for STEM content. Quit the political crap.
"Not-so-scientific American"
Agree with all 3 of you. Disconcerting from Scientific American.
Anyone else come here to see "facts and science" and find nothing but feelings, political agendas, and delusion?
Gender dysphoria is a social construct so it is not a real virus or a kind of disability.
Yep
@@ZONE-fj8lyptsd, which is a nurtured disorder and it’s socially constructed through the environment becomes debilitating.
So I can see how gender dysphoria can become a disability
@@ryanthomas9306 So wrong, disability occurs when there is a fracture somewhere in the human body or an infection from a chronic disease that impairs someone's internal organs. Gender dysphoria could not be found and be examined in the human anatomy under any medical devices by checking their bloodstream, lungs or kidney.
So I can see how gender dysphoria could not cripple or infect anyone. Therefore, it is purely a mental disorder from social life, not a real physical impairment from an environmental case.
@@ZONE-fj8ly agoraphobia is a fracture of the mind.
It’s also a disability.
So my point is still 100 percent valid
you both danced around the actual examples and gave little (well-explained) evidence. you've proved only that if you label something misinformation or culturally biased then it must be so. this isn't a topic to be done in a 6:21 video. watching this was frustrating, and would've been more credible with biologists with opinions that didn't affirm your narratives. that's what science is debate and agreed upon facts.
I totally agree. Moreover, sex is biology. By the own admission of the people speaking here, "gender" is subjective. How can it be studied "scientifically"? And then we are told that science is wrong, because there genders are "non-binary"! How much more ridiculous can they be?
Why is something more credible if presented by a biologist? Isnt that falling into bad habits of only an authority can spread the information? Surely better if the more complex biology / science stuff is broken down to a more simplified lateral explanation, where the word OR is replaced by AND , binary thinking is not allowed?
actually science is a method of challenging facts. curiously the scientific method requires that facts must be falsifiable. hence the need for open debate.
@@tonyfubu open debate was is what I wae commenting on. thank you for the clarification.
@@robbaker1841 more specifically, it would've been more credible if the discussion between biologists with differing understandings of the topic were made mention.. the results of said understandings being represented would be a more accurate representation of the agreed upon facts, thereby making the assertions in the video more than editorial. it's ok to make opinion pieces but you can't be surprised if no one views you as a source of objective facts.
The man here claims that biology (the study of living organisms) is being weaponized? 🙄🤡
Well, yes, it’s being weaponized… by them… they are trying to justify a dumb ideology with dumb science.
Why is a scientific journal now consulting professors of trans history for opinions on what constitutes junk science, instead of publishing quality scientific and medical research studies? Shame on you, Scientific American. Don't post this opinion on your site, giving people the impression that it is anything but an isolated opinion from an academic from the Arts, not the sciences.
Do you disagree that junk science isn't a thing though?
Edit: Flat earth is a good example of junk science.
@@blastortoisetransgenderism was founded by pedophile doctors
@@blastortoise Everything this dude in the video says is junk science.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 Every bigot uses junk science and religion, but this video at least spares us the child rape of Catholicism
@@blastortoisehave you heard the term fear mongering ?
Do you have a point?
Oh here's my expert who just so happens to also be a trangender person and has absolutely no bias in the conclusions of the studies. Just trust me bro.
-Scientific American
Science is meant to affirm transgender people. That’s the good science. Anything against trans politics is the bad science.
Exactly my thought. Regardless if i agree o r not, they aren't providing any legitimate sources in this video. Junk science? Show me, don't just tell me.
@@kw2080that’s not how it works… science is science, you’re supposed to learn from it
If you followed questionnaire based surveys on happiness, then every man should have a Ferrari and every woman should get free boob jobs
This is supposed to be a scientific channel, not a propaganda one
Everything made by the media is propaganda, it just depends on which propaganda you like more😂😂
It is not propaganda
I know right. These demons should be kept cells not here.
I wouldn't have expected to see such a disingenuous bad faith video from this channel.
And the not so subtle attempt of tying this into race science was repulsive. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I totally agree.
100% agree.
Unfortunately, I would. SA jumped the shark with its reporting on trans issues.
Race thesis: White Europeans are superior to other races. Evidence through spurious (junk) research supports this contention.
Christian-gender thesis: God made man and woman different for separate gender roles. Evidence through spurious (junk) research supports this contention.
@@sandal_thong8631 I'm not sure what you are getting at. This seems like the mother of all strawmen. There is NO science research stating what you are referring to, and no one in the realm of ANY science is thinking like this. There might have been some, to justify colonialism in the XIXth c. and before, but all of this has been swept away in ridicule a long while ago. But indeed, there are still people who act and think as if such ideas were still relevant, still currently held or had been in a relatively recent past. It's certainly not the case in science. But for these people, it's practical to entertain such a belief.
The clip is criticizing science. You cannot get more of a strawman: it's a totally fabricated thesis to discredit science. Btw, what you are talking about belongs to sociology at best, not science. Including the idea of "genders", something that nothing in biology can substantiate, that relates in fact to inner feelings or a perceived set of social rules. It's indeed hardly even sociology, or at best, it's a terrible type of politicized sociology. But it has nothing to do with hard sciences, which is what people here are outraged about: this totally unjustified criticism.
They had no idea who was male or female? You actually say it wasn't hormones, gonads, or chromosomes. 99.9% of the time just one of those will tell you. All 3 together and you definitely know who's male or female. Why is it that when we classify animals it's binary with either male or female in mammals but humans we think are different? Can we choose what race we are too? If not why is one allowed and not the other?
RIP Scientific American
Why? They showed how science is on the side of trans people - whats the issue?
“They had no idea what made people male or female it wasn’t chromosomes” huh????
They dont even mention... uuuh gametes? sperm and ova... ffs!
Yes, they didn’t explain what else was involved
@@casusolivas they are a perfect example of junk science
Some people can have chromosomes of different sex even if they arent intersex.
@@qwardel7799no they can’t.
1:30 You gotta love how plenty of "academics" and "journalists" like to talk down to the rest of people. In their narratives, it's always the other people who are prejudiced and who need to be "educated". As if they stand outside and above society and other people's intuitions mean nothing. As if they themselves could never have questionable incentives or biases.
Those with extremists views and prejudices reject opinions of authorities like professors and journalists and lately medical experts. It's a fascist technique to denigrate such folk so their followers will only listen to approved party-spokesmen and not question "Glorious Leader." In this country it was creating an alternative media 25 years ago in Fox and Limbaugh, and in the few cases when those aren't saying what people want to hear, going to more extremist, lying media sources (something called Newsmax?).
So, do you think society is the same as in 40-60's?
Didn't provide any citations or intuitive explanations on why the biological concepts of male and female are wrong. Just appeals to authority, question begging statements, and a weird false equivalence to scientific racism.
If you're going to keep publishing this type of content, y'all should change your name to Technocratic American.
Tell you what, it's horrific when a 150-year-old bastion of science journalism is outdone in objectivity by TH-cam COMMENTORS! Oh Sci Am, how far have you sunk?
"Scientific" American: Fighting "junk" science with junkier science.
"gender affirming care"
Okay, so how do we "affirm" a gender? There must be some objective definition, on your worldview, that allows some use of terms like "boy" or "girl" to be correct or incorrect. Otherwise you're not affirming anything (and likewise, no one can ever misgender anyone either). So for me to take you seriously as a conduit of scientific research, and for transgenderism in general to begin to make any kind of sense, you'll need to provide an objective definition for these terms we're being told to use in a particular way. Thanks.
Gender affirming care = Conversion therapy.
If 'gender' and 'sex' are synonymous then "affirming ones gender" would be nonsensical. That would be like asking someone to affirm I had three feet. Your biological sex is not changeable. But generally when people refer to "gender," it is in reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological. That is to say, the identity of the person. This is where it gets complicated because, in the same way we cannot objectively define art in such a way everyone can agree with, there can be no objective definition for something that is inheritely subjective.
Here is how I look at it: if a transgender person claims to have changed their biological sex through the use of hormones, different choice of dress, etc, then they are delusional. But if they are simply asking for their identity to be respected (ie: using their preferred pronouns), and can seperate between biological sex and gender, then I cannot find anything objectively wrong with doing so. At this point and time, we are aware that conventional psychotherapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or psychoanalysis don't do anything for gender dysphoria.
If you disagree I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
@@dead_protagonist "If 'gender' and 'sex' are synonymous then "affirming ones gender" would be nonsensical."
Well that's just the point; it *is* nonsensical. Gender and sex are one and the same, just different words to refer to the same thing. As I may have said, this is why the roles we're expected to play solely based on our biological sex, are called "gender roles".
"But generally when people refer to "gender," it is in reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological."
Right, they are confusing gender roles and norms with gender itself.
"This is where it gets complicated because, in the same way we cannot objectively define art in such a way everyone can agree with, there can be no objective definition for something that is inheritely subjective."
The problem is that they push these distinctions as if they *are* objective, then fall back on admitting they're subjective when asked to give an objective definition. They want to say I've "misgendered" a biological male by calling him a man, for example. But it's logically impossible to be correct or incorrect while using terms with no objective definition. In the same way you couldn't say I was incorrect to like one work of art while disliking another, you couldn't say I was incorrect in saying this person is a woman while another person isn't.
"But if they are simply asking for their identity to be respected (ie: using their preferred pronouns), and can seperate between biological sex and gender, then I cannot find anything objectively wrong with doing so."
But you can't find anything objectively *right* with doing so either, which is why they're wrong to coerce or force it. Furthermore, if I call someone a "man", and we say that sex and gender are different things, how do they know I'm referring to their gender and not their biological sex? I couldn't be misgendering them, if I'm not referring to their gender in the first place, after all.
"At this point and time, we are aware that conventional psychotherapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or psychoanalysis don't do anything for gender dysphoria."
You say that, but most children who are treated for gender dysphoria overcome it and do not grow up to be trans. Besides which, once you've let this incoherent worldview get to the point of diagnosis by the "experts" (who cannot even define their terms when asked), it may very well be too late. We shouldn't encourage or even allow it to take root in the first place.
@@Vic2point0 Thank you for replying.
"Gender and sex are one and the same, just different words to refer to the same thing."
While that may have been the case at one point, its modern definition has changed to reflect their distinguishing factors. Regardless, as to avoid turning this into an argument of semantics, when I speak of "gender" I am referring to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men- that including gender norms, roles and relationships between men and women. Even if I am mistaken and they are synonymous, surely you would agree that what I am speaking of is fundamentally different to biological sex. Biological sex is in no way psychological, therefore they cannot be the same.
"Right, they are confusing gender roles and norms with gender itself."
I speak of the same thing. As I said, transgender people who claim to have changed their biological sex are deluded or misinformed. But my argument is, if they are fully aware of this (that they can only change how they outwardly present and are referred to within society, and that no hormones or surgeries will change their sex) then on what grounds are they deluded or confused? Is it objectively wrong to go against a socially constructed phenomenon? And how can this answer be anything but subjective?
"The problem is that they push these distinctions as if they are objective, then fall back on admitting they're subjective when asked to give an objective definition. They want to say I've "misgendered" a biological male by calling him a man, for example. But it's logically impossible to be correct or incorrect while using terms with no objective definition."
I agree, but I believe you are conflating two different things. If you simply said "You are a biological male" then you would be in no way incorrect (incendiary perhaps), but if you said "Your sex does not match your gender therefore your identity is incorrect" then you are thinking subjectively and not objectively. I also find your argument (that it is impossible to misgender someone because each individual has their own gender identity) to be flawed. I will explain in a second.
"In the same way you couldn't say I was incorrect to like one work of art while disliking another, you couldn't say I was incorrect in saying this person is a woman while another person isn't."
Then following this logic, you would agree that if a biological male were to say they socially identified as a woman, they would not be incorrect? But I find this to be a faulty comparision. The reason why there cannot be an objective definition of art is because it changes with the individuals preferences. That is not to say there IS no definition. If I were to say "You only enjoy surreal art," I would (most likely) be incorrect because I am forcing my definition of art onto you, while others may still agree with me. That does not mean you are wrong. I can only create my own definition and have it be respected, as others are free to do the same. So if a person preferred to identify as a female, and you referred to them as a male, then you would be forcing your subjective definition (that pronouns refer to the sex of the person rather the gender) onto them, and saying they are wrong for thinking otherwise. And they are probably forcing their subjective definition onto you as well. Neither are "correct" or "wrong." I would like to talk more about this soon.
"But you can't find anything objectively right with doing so either, which is why they're wrong to coerce or force it."
But what is "objectively right?" Who decides this? There are no objective moral obligations to do anything. In the end, whether or not you choose to affirm one's chosen gender comes down to your personal moral code. As a moral subjectivist, morality is decided by the individual. Objectivism has nothing to do with it, at least from what I can see. I personally would not go out of my way to misgender someone because to me that is morally wrong and needlessly provocative, but you may disagree and that is fine. Please explain how they are coercing or forcing their identities onto others.
"Furthermore, if I call someone a "man", and we say that sex and gender are different things, how do they know I'm referring to their gender and not their biological sex? I couldn't be misgendering them, if I'm not referring to their gender in the first place, after all."
Correct, but only if you can be sure of their biological sex. But how do you determine this? Anatomy? Voice? Body type? Do you make them undress in front of you? All can be altered with hormones/surgery/prosthetics. It seems you choose a pronoun based on their gender presentation.
"You say that, but most children who are treated for gender dysphoria overcome it and do not grow up to be trans." Besides which, once you've let this incoherent worldview get to the point of diagnosis by the "experts" (who cannot even define their terms when asked), it may very well be too late. We shouldn't encourage or even allow it to take root in the first place."
Where can I find these statistics? I believe you, but I want to be sure I have the correct information. And please explain how it is an incoherent worldview from an objective standpoint.
@@dead_protagonist "when I speak of "gender" I am referring to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men- that including gender norms, roles and relationships between men and women."
Which is, again, confusing gender roles and norms (which include the roles and norms involved in relationships between men and women) with gender itself. I will not go along with that.
Besides which, another problem you run into in defining gender that way is as follows: If I adhere to the gender roles and norms of a woman... but identify as a man, what will trans people and trans advocates call me? Well, they'll still call me a man. So you see, the most intellectually honest definition anyone can give for "woman" is the circular and subjective "someone who identifies as a woman".
"But my argument is, if they are fully aware of this (that they can only change how they outwardly present and are referred to within society, and that no hormones or surgeries will change their sex) then on what grounds are they deluded or confused?"
Well this is part of why some of them have taken to describing themselves not as "men" and "women" but as "trans men" and "trans women", respectively. In those cases, the delusion is still that they insist that those of us who call them "women" and "men" are incorrect. But that's logically impossible, to be incorrect using terms that have no objective definition.
"Is it objectively wrong to go against a socially constructed phenomenon?"
That's not what transgenderism does. An example of going against a socially constructed phenomenon would be a woman (who identifies as a woman) saying, "I'm not going to be a stay at home mom who cooks and cleans, but I'm going to enter the UFC instead".
"If you simply said "You are a biological male" then you would be in no way incorrect (incendiary perhaps), but if you said "Your sex does not match your gender therefore your identity is incorrect" then you are thinking subjectively and not objectively."
Well again, I maintain that everyone's sex *does* match their gender, since they're one and the same. But even saying "your sex doesn't match your 'gender identity'", I would be basing it on objectively real criteria. That's what's meant by "objective definition".
ME: "In the same way you couldn't say I was incorrect to like one work of art while disliking another, you couldn't say I was incorrect in saying this person is a woman while another person isn't."
YOU: "Then following this logic, you would agree that if a biological male were to say they socially identified as a woman, they would not be incorrect?"
They wouldn't be incorrect with that exact statement. But they'd be incoherent to claim that it's *true* that they are a woman, since they wouldn't be able to give an objective definition for "woman" (or "man" for that matter).
"So if a person preferred to identify as a female, and you referred to them as a male, then you would be forcing your subjective definition (that pronouns refer to the sex of the person rather the gender) onto them,"
Why does this only work one way? Why wouldn't you say *they're* forcing *their* subjective definition onto *me?* Especially in light of the fact that they *are* trying to force it on me, because they want to control what words I use. They get angry if I continue to use words my way. I'm not telling them that they can't walk around calling themselves a woman/female (even though I can give objective definitions for these terms), but they're wanting to go so far as to call my use of words "hate speech" or "discrimination" in a legal sense.
"And they are probably forcing their subjective definition onto you as well."
Not "probably". You were quick to say I was forcing it, you should be equally quick to throw that on those who are literally forcing it.
"But what is "objectively right?" Who decides this?"
It's not something decided but discovered. And one of the ways we discover that is through discussions like this one.
"There are no objective moral obligations to do anything."
I strongly disagree. You don't find that we're morally obligated, say, to not torture little children for fun?
"I personally would not go out of my way to misgender someone-"
Again, not logically possible to misgender anyone, on transgenderism. If there is no objective standard by which someone qualifies as a "man" or "woman", you cannot ever be correct or incorrect while using these terms.
"because to me that is morally wrong"
But if you don't believe that morality is objective, then the phrase "morally wrong" is meaningless. It's just referring to "I don't like it". So you shouldn't say for instance "Killing someone is morally wrong". You should say "I don't like it when someone's killed". And of course, the obvious response will be "So what?"
"Correct, but only if you can be sure of their biological sex."
Wouldn't have to be sure, only correct. And are you conceding that if I called, say, Elliot Page a woman I wouldn't be misgendering her?
"It seems you choose a pronoun based on their gender presentation."
Sure, if it's thorough enough, it can be deceiving. Just like a competently forged certificate of a law degree. But if I hang such a certificate on my wall, I'm still not a lawyer, no matter how many people are fooled into thinking I am one.
"Where can I find these statistics?"
TH-cam is really bad about deleting comments when I post links, but if you google "pubmed 25231780" it should bring a link up to an abstract of a study which reads,
"On the subject of treating children, however, as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health notes in their latest Standards of Care, gender dysphoria in childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood, and only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood. Further, most of the boys' gender dysphoria desisted, and in adulthood, they identified as gay rather than as transgender."
You can identify as a bird but that doesn’t mean you can fly.
This is not science more like indoctrination and from the worst place, John Hopkins
I have yet to meet a single person who disagrees with the science who knows the first thing about the science they're disagreeing with.
Kids don't have the capacity to decide those kinda things.
Giving hormones and hormone blockers to minors is irresponsible.
Children deserve love, respect, and attention, they aren't idiots, they can choose who they want to be
There is a misconception of how hormones are given to people, or even how this procedure begins
No one is forcing them to do it, that's an extremist and transphobic fantasy
@@milliabea
Children are not idiots.
They are not responsible enough and lack maturity to make some desicions that later on they can regret. And this talking about irreversible actions.
And what is an extremist and ridiculous fantasy is to want to make every children be referred as non binary. 😂
Then... Weren't they capable enough to decide what they wanted?
@@milliabea No, kids can choose who they want to be (gender wise) once they are adults. They are not idiots but they are fickle and change their minds often from year to year before they mature. Are you a parent?
@@ronsedlak4019 skill issue
@@milliabea children are in fact idiots and it takes adults to educate them. If kids weren't idiots then why would I need to present ID at Walmart to buy epoxy glue??? If a kid can't be trusted with glue why should they be trusted with sex. Not to mention it's groomers like this video that teach kids they can change their sex anyhow even though that's an obvious LIE
Junk like John Money?
Totally oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the Brown Univ. study. Read the original and the "corrected" (essentially the same). If anything, the additional contributors lend support.
The avalanche of aggressive pressure from the ideologues led to an extremely minor "correction" that in no way diminished the main finding of the study was the overwhelming influence of social contagion and peer pressure in the sudden sharp rise of "trans"-identifying young women and teenage girls.
Sci Am: “Here’s what you need to know…”
History Professor: “Here’s my opinion about why trans science has been junk, right, and I hope you’ll *Trust Me, Bro* because of how confident I sound, right, even though I constantly imply that I need or deserve your agreement by using ‘right’ as a filler word, right, while neither I nor the channel publishing this interview will actually CITE my sources so that the audience, right, could analyze them independently.”
Audience: 😳
It's a shame to see Sci Am, a magazine I've read and trusted for years, sink to this. This is an issue of politics, or sociology. It is absolutely not a medical issue, or if it is, it's a mental health one. And apparently Sci Am are campaigning on behalf of treating mental illness with surgery. This is a horrible mess, how did Sci Am get dragged into it?
Funded by pharm & tech billionaires with paraphilias. 11th Hour Blog by Jennifer Bilek has the receipts.
@@SailaSobriquet
> not in a way that is derogatory to sociology as a discipline
No, it's more of an insult to society itself. A (good) sociologist just has to observe it.
Money. The hormones and treatments is a perpetual source of money.
It's actually a biological one. Gender dysphoria has to do with brain structure not mental illness.
@@mochi844 this
What’s the distinction between a child that thinks they are the opposite sex and a child that thinks they’re an adult? Nothing, they both think what the adults around them are telling them.
Pls don't say "junk science" than use pseudo scientists to back yourself up 😂 do you think we're stupid????
This is a classic technique of the ideologues, accuse others of that what they are guilty of...
This video has all the marks of young-earth creationists’ video….
They don’t deny biological science. These people think you could change your sex on the whim.
Haha, as a Theistic Evolutionist, I love it when people in the lgbt tell me that I have junk science
Headline: Purveyors of junk science accuse their opponents of junk science.
I’d like to know where in Gray’s Anatomy they define male and female with respect to “gender identity”.
The general argument for “gender identity” also justifies “racial identity”. So Scientific American should produce a video supporting, validating and affirming “racial identity”, such as Rachel Dolezal’s trans racial identity and Oli London’s trans racial identity. Rebecca Tuvel wrote one of the most controversial academic papers of the last 20 years precisely for supporting Dolezal and transgender and trans racial identities. So if scientific American doesn’t affirm Dolezal’s trans racial identity, they are transphobic.
You know, for a hot second there, I thought you were talking about the show. 🤣🤣
Then I remembered. 😆
@@himwhoisnottobenamed5427 yeah, well, nothing is so stupid that it couldn’t have been said in a YT comment.
They can't, there's no such thing as gender or trans anything
@@ursussy dodging the issue. Read Rebecca Tuvel’s scholarly paper on transrace and transgender. The paper came out long before tiktok. The fact is “gender” is pseudoscience. Sex is objective science. Everything you call “gender” has been known for thousands of years as sex-based stereotypes. Stereotypes exist and you can choose to defy them. But these are SEX-based stereotypes. You are fooled by the wishy washy gender unicorn pseudoscience ideology. You are logically committed to the preposterous notions of trans race and trans species. Your psychological illness is characterized by a lack of acknowledgement of reality. You find reality to be offensive to you. That’s very sad. But the reality is there is only sex and sex based stereotypes. Defying the stereotype doesn’t make you the opposite sex. Dress how you want, it doesn’t change your sex.
> I’d like to know where in Gray’s Anatomy they define male and female with respect to “gender identity”.
What does psychology have to do with anatomy? 🤔
"trans kids' stop pathologizing kids who just like things associated with the opposite sex jfc.
IKR? When I was young, my mum's friends made an effort to let their children play with whichever toys they liked. A lad I knew wanted a miniature kitchen on wheels that you could pretend to cook on, it had a sink, etc. You know what that made him? A boy with a kitchen.
80 years ago, a boy wouldn't be allowed a kitchen, because of sexism. 40 years ago it would have been fine. But NOW, not only is a kitchen a "girl's toy" again, wanting one actually MAKES you a girl! Just before anything else, isn't that incredibly SEXIST?
There's no toy a boy can play with that makes him a girl, because toys are just toys and people are people. If he really wants to wear a dress (and I mean HIM, REALLY, not his demented Histrionic or Muchausen's By Proxy, or other Type B Personality Disorder mother, who wants the attention and praise that garners from certain quarters), then let him. Let kids and adults wear what the hell they want, otherwise is sexist. Let them play and work and whatever else. But there are still sex-based differences and sex-based rights and that includes things like privacy and the right to be naked and vulnerable, where that's necessary, in a changing room only with your own sex.
It feels like a bunch of kids and I dunno what, think they've discovered "Not Being Sexist", but are doing it all wrong and fucked up, that they're so *innately* sexist that they can't help but implement it sexistly. So they're concentrating only on surface features, and doing it backwards.
There's so many problems with this. There are so many messed-up adults, and even cruel adults, in the world, and sadly plenty of them are parents. It's society's duty to protect kids, who are otherwise helpless, from harm at the hands of these demented people. Fortunately it doesn't have to happen a lot, but where it does, it's vital.
Where they're not demented, they might be well-meaning but simply doing what they think is right, in ignorance, in the face of great social pressure and kids who have been told to threaten suicide by online groomers, or "egg hatchers", on online forums, Reddit and Discord. The trans movement has been quick to stuff as much of their rhetoric in to the public's brain-hole as they can. As fast and as much and as self-serving, doesn't even matter what it really says in detail, in fact a broad impression is better!
This is a terrible video. That researcher using John Money and Alfred Kinsey as references, smh
The irony, a host and a guest using junk science against real science.
Science is meant to affirm what we already know about our politics.
Indeed. The science of "They are whatever they identify as, now let's go get some lunch!"
@@Vic2point0 that’s real science too. I’m sure using a self reported survey over a 2 month span to show that they didn’t change their minds after 2 months lol
@@kw2080 Science and politics are two separate things
@@kw2080meant to affirm politics ? Wtf
I’m trying to see both sides here… the expert is saying that sex and gender aren’t different, but aren’t they literally by definition? I don’t think anyone said trans people ‘made it up’ I feel like the entire point is being missed?
It's a psychological issue not a physiological issue.
Some people (and I mean influencers) are hellbent on trying to portray them as different things when they aren't.
Gender is someone’s psychological perspective of their sex, that is all. The identity is socially formed. It matches sex 99.4 percent of the time so it’s genetic in itself
Gender incongruence is psychological
Gender has been re-defined modernly to account for the feelings and experiences of the gender dysphoric. It now has a new meaning which equates not to biological sex but more to social constructs. It does not change the original meaning but just adds a new meaning to the word. It is common for words to embody more than one concept.
Gender Dysmorphia is real but the surgical treatment of a psychological disorder is irrational and unproven. We don’t do pre frontal lobotomies anymore either.
This video baffles me...the entire transgender science and research violates many of the basic scientific method of control groups and unbiased experiments at its core. What worried me the most is when academics and professors write papers suggesting that more research needs to be done on some questions that may be contrary to the transgender movement, such as investigating the role of peer pressure in childhood development...they find themselves at odds or in trouble and even discouraged by the very universities which they are employed...
Why was only this one Doctor interviewed? Why was only a person who is allin on trans identity interviewed? How much of this doctors funding is from Pro-trans studies? Follow the money and you can follow the science.
You mean have a debate? Please, platforming questions about science is not science. I affirm whatever people think and I hope scientists continue to give self reported surveys that legitimize political ideology.
@@kw2080 So you are not allowed to question Science? First of all you have to ask, it this really "Science" or is it a personal or political opinion. And rule one in science is "Question Everything"
@@sldessel I guess satire is indistinguishable from reality nowadays. Sorry for the confusion. You make a good point.
@@kw2080 so you are aware that it's political ideology? At least you're right about something.
@@kw2080political ideology”
Yes this shouldn’t be taught to children, thank you
It's interesting that, with increasing trans inclusivity and wider societal acceptance, gender dysmorphia is disproportionately increasing among the youngest demographics as opposed to oldest demographics. Particularly when the hypothesis is that trans people always existed but were otherwise suppressed. You'd expect to see a similar trend among all demographics, including among those with differing cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Though the rate of increase does seem to be a uniquely anglosphere phenomenon.
Perhaps there are environmental variables influencing gender dysmorphia outcomes such as media, education, laissez-faire parenting approaches, absent parent(s), peer conformity, mental illness and social pressures. Studies incidentally into additional factors that challenge the scientific consensus that the dysmorphia is biological (which itself has extremely weak supporting publications that regularly conflate exceptional intersex cases which is exactly what this 'researcher' does)... Never receive funding.
Were it, hypothetically, one day found that there was a correlation and dare say causation between such variables and gender dysmorphia... Should the research and funding be allowed no matter how controversial among social justice types... Would the scientific treatment consensus still be to affirm a patient's chosen gender identity? Or to discourage, address the underlying causes behind the dysmorphia both in the patient and the increasing rates among young people with the view that it is now treatable and preventable?
It's an interesting question, though I doubt we'll ever be allowed to know.
The actual doctors and scientists overwhelmingly support gender-affirming treatment for trans children(within reasons, you'll almost never find a doctor advocating sex reassignments for children) and have done so for decades, long before the current spotlight was being shined so heavily on the trans community. As for a disproportionate percentage of minors identifying as trans, it is true that it is more common for younger people to identify as trans, but the percentage is still a tiny minority compared to those that identify as cisgender. This can be, and among sociologists usually is, attributed to the more progressive and open minded attitudes of Gen Z as well as the increasing visibility and exposure of trans people in society which normalizes transness and makes younger people more comfortable identifying with it. Are there minors who identify as trans at one point only to realize later that they're actually cis? Of course, and that's a big reason why doctors don't prescribe the same type of gender affirming care to them as they do adults. Typically trans minors are only allowed to take hormone blockers which delay the onset of puberty, until they're around 16-18 when they're started on testosterone or estrogen supplements on top of the blockers. This is because the delayed onset of puberty caused by hormone blockers is fully reversible and causes no lasting effects to a child if they choose to stop taking them. But conservative media don't mention any of that, because it doesn't fit with their narrative that the evil, mentally ill, groomers are forcing children to get sex changes.
@@Arinisonfire With all due respect, that doesn't seek to answer the question, and instead explains the current prescribed treatment plans for trans individuals and ends on a critique of opposition.
The research isn't there and it has been hamstrung both within the scientific community and among special interest groups both advocating the gender affirming status quo and challenging it.
Even innocuous studies, such as... Is someone assigned at birth male more predisposed to gender dysmorphia, particularly male to female, in the absence of either a male role model or male parental figure during critical stages of childhood development? Same vice versa, in the absence of a female role model or female parental figure. Furthermore, are these individuals more predisposed to gender dysmorphia if they grow up in single parent families than not?
We don't know the answer to those three questions. If we did, then we'd know if parental approaches and absent parents are a variable in trans outcomes. If they are? That contradicts the scientific consensus that gender dysmorphia is biological or at least wholly biological, which again, only operates on the conflation between exceptional intersex cases and the wider trans community. Which we know is shaky because not everyone that is trans is intersex.
Does that mean the scientific community should or would suddenly stop affirming gender? No. It might still be the best treatment outcome for those with gender dysmorphia.
But could it mean that it could be prevented? Possibly. Possibly not. But more importantly it would further explain why some countries and cultures with less divorce rates and more of a conservative or conservatively religious focus on the nuclear family aren't experiencing similarly increasing rates among young people compared to anglosphere countries. And that would broaden our understanding.
Though it won't be allowed, because the topic isn't just scientific or medical. It is political.
@@Arinisonfire the actual doctors are trying to make you into life long patients
Nice question!
@@Arinisonfire if a child Transitions and then realizes that they're cis then isn't that a problem? Shouldn't they have known that what they identify as was legitimate? Are people just going around making mistakes and then finding out that they are not what they identified as? Is there any verifiable source that can confirm that what a person has identified as is accurate outside of that own individual? And there is no such thing as completely reversible. Every pharmaceutical grade drug has side effects. Short-term and long-term.
I’m shocked that Scientific American is so superficial.
'How Scientific American lost all credibility" - fixed that title for ya!
Science historians are not trained scientists, for christ sake SciAm what happened to you?
Scientific American is no more
I'm not against trans people. I'm against the idea that everyone else is merely "performing gender." That's upside-down.
This video is sick propaganda and John Money was a barbaric monster.
Ironically, this video is junk science
I'll give you any credibility when you also point the statistics about regret and suicide of those that took the most extreme path of transition, perceiving that changing the gender wouldn't instantaneous fix their psychological problems as expected, since they are rooted on more complex aspects mostly involved in their formation years during youth. Junk science goes both ways you know.
Since you are making this claim, can you provide any evidence for it? I wanted to find out more, and a brief search on my end showed a meta-study of 27 studies which found, out of the 7,928 transgender patients included, that “The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS (gender-affirmation surgeries) was 1% (95% CI
The study I've seen concludes decreased suicide ideation among trans adolescents that received pubertal suppressants vs those that wanted it but didn't get it. See PubMed. Where is the study backing your assertion to the contrary ?
Just blatantly false
@@infinitemonkey917 It's true. I've seen a few of these studies. But you have to take into consideration that these studies haven't been conducted on the new generations of trans. In the UK for instance, in the last decade or so, seemingly because it is debated widely, cases of transition have raised by 3000%. We will have to see what happens next. I personally do believe there are real, hard cases. I'm not sure this politicization is good for kids, though. At least, I'm not sure it will be good for all of them.
@@frankarouet If you are against politicizing it then you think it should be a matter involving the kid, the parents and doctors, not the government.
New name " Unscientific American"
Soyentific American
Hope someone archives this so when the lawsuits come crashing down we know who stood where...
In the immortal words from kindergarten cop: boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. It happens 99.99999% of the time. It’s all you need to know.
This video is junk science.
Fun fact in Sweden they actually did legalize transitioning for kids and puberty blockers and surgery. Years later, multiple people(mainly biological girls) who transitioned as teen developed depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies and regret. After that puberty blockers and anything involved with transitioning on a medical level became illegal to pre adults
@Jacki Steeneck as a adult, I don’t care what other adults do. I’m against alcohol but don’t care if anyone drinks, I don’t think you should be able to buy a gun unless you’re an adult, get a tattoo, etc because they’re adults who can recognize the danger or risks of whatever action they’re partaking in. Kids and teens cannot.
@Jacki Steeneck funny you think it’s that hard when there are cases where after one visit, just one psychiatrist, you can be told that your parents should put you on puberty blockers and hormones (all of which has side affects obviously, even biological men taking testosterone can have negative side effects) and not be told that these are permanent, untested, and harmful. I’m well aware you “need consent” from the parents to the point it’s considered child abuse. I recommend looking at the Swedish u-turn
@Jacki Steeneck "what we shouldn't be doing is banning it until 18 years old" Yeah this is why we kinda closed off debate with you people.
@@sabersin5368-c2c finally another sensible person
this is why Jordan peterson predicts in about 15years there will be lot s of lawsuits against the medical community for children who transitioned now ..th e same thing will happne here !!
Ok, can you define what is a woman? What would be written on a dictionary next to the word?
That's legally very important, we need a clear definition. We can't have rules without words that aren't clearly defined.
It depends.
Biology defines - for sexually reproducing species - that sex as "female" that produces the ovum. It's a total arbitrary definition.
All else varies.
Gender on the other hand is learned and subject to change.
Sex and gender are very complex once you start digging deeper.
I recommend looking up various national and international agencies and organizations for their definitions. You then get an idea how complicated sex and gender are from medical, social, psychological, historical and legal perspectives.
@@susanne5803 It cant depend, it cant have a fluid definition regarding law. What is the definition to be used, then? What.Is.A.Woman?
@@susanne5803 Lots of paradoxes in what you just wrote, Su sanne. If gender is learned and subject to change, it therefore means that transsexuals could be "treated" and change. But the best documented cases show kids feeling they belong to the other "sex" at an age that makes it impossible for them to have learned. Also, if it's the case, it means that it's essentially a whim, not something deep. What is learned can be unlearned. Transsexuals show exactly the opposite.
Also, saying that a female produces an ovum is certainly not arbitrary. It might be only one element, but it's objectively demonstrable, as well as to show that a male produces its own gamete. There's nothing arbitrary there. The choice might be if you limit yourself at it. But not in itself. Your rationalization on this, on the other hand, is arbitrary. It's a choice. A political choice. Because in social sciences, you think everything is. Which is totally absurd. That's why people are criticizing the clip. It's not science.
@@P4r4k I don't know if sex is biologically fluid in humans. Aspects certainly are.
Gender certainly seems to be fluid.
But as regards law: each specific case pertaining to sex and/or gender needs a specific definition.
A war crime for example is cutting off young women's breast so that they can never again feed their own children. For the court suing the perpetrators we need a definition for "woman" which doesn't depend on women to have breasts, to lactate and to nurse.
For a long time doctors surgically changed the appearance of intersex children to belong clearly to the categories "female" or "male". If a person appearing as a "woman" found out they had intersex gonads inside and couldn't have children and they sue the doctors who never told them - how do we legally define their sex?
The doctors' lawyers would try to define the intersex person as "woman".
The intersex person's lawyers would define their sex as "intersex" and maybe their gender as "female".
The same intersex person has been in a marriage with a man (appearing as and defining himself as a "man"). This guy can't cope with the news that his wife was born intersex and they can't have children. He beats her/them up. She/they sue him.
Now the husband's lawyers might define the wife as "intersex" and claim their client was deceived.
The wife's lawyers might define her/them as "woman" because neither she/they nor he were aware of her/them being anything else during courtship, wedding and marriage.
In one case one definition is more useful in another case another definition. That doesn't change anything about the person. Consider it highlighting certain aspects of this person.
@@frankarouet Gender is learned and subject to change across history and during the lifetime of an individual person.
In the first half of your argument you confuse "sex" and "gender". That's why your argument falls apart.
As to the definition:
The definition of the ovum producing being as "female" was totally arbitrary. Some people sat around a table at a point in history and decided that ovum producing would henceforward be considered "female". They could have considered it "male". Equally valid decision.
The semantical definition is arbitrary. Translation to simple English: it's a word.
Not the biological fact that one of the two beings in sexually reproducing species is producing an ovum, if physiology permits. An ovum is a visible tangible fact. In simple English: it's nature.
The words we apply to nature are arbitrary results of use and traditions. As nicely shown by the multitude of languages spoken by humans.
The meaning of words becomes fuzzy at the edges.
We mostly agree on green and blue. But there's an area where some people would call a colour "blueish" and some people would call the same colour "greenish".
Same with sex and gender. We usually easily agree on "sexually woman" and "sexually man" or "female behaviour" and "male behaviour".
But what about the person who looks naked like a guy and we learn they have a uterus additionally to male gonades by nature? Some people would call this person "male" some would call them "intersex".
What about the person looking naked like a woman behaving as we expect a woman in our society to behave and getting to know her we learn she is since many years transsexual and her scars are undetectable at first glance. I and some people would call her "woman". Some people would call her "trans woman". And some people would call her "man".
She herself might call herself "woman". Yet if she needs a medical procedure she will make sure the doctors know she was born "male" - because she may have slightly different risks and need slightly different medication.
What about the man who was born a man, is comfortable being a man, behaves like our society expects a man to behave - yet consistently wears womans' clothing, jewelry and female types of makeup. What do we call this person? A "man", a "woman", a "transvestite", a "crossdresser"? What does this person call themselves?
So the fringes of our definitions of sex and gender, "woman and man" "female and male" are blurring and fuzzy. As with all our words and their meanings.
(Ever had an argument with a logic specialist or a mathematician about the meaning of "and"?!)
In a sexual reproducing species science needs to call the two beings something. They might have gone for "A and B" instead of "female and male" for all I care.
So a story about junk science decides to interview a "historian" and not a scientist. Of course.
The editor-in-chief needs to grow some balls, and fire the people who clearly don't give two craps about science
Driving clicks probably gets someone promoted, not fired.
What a surprise! The science historian studied in the same damn university John Money did.
This video DEFINITELY contains NO bias!!! Apart from the fact that all the 'experts' seem to either be transgender themselves or very left-leaning xD
It doesn’t matter guys… we’re all about to die
🤣😂🤣
“Scientific” huh?
This is garbage. No facts given. Not even a reasonable discussion of their findings. If someone is going to make a claim that there is "junk science" then they better be prepared to give an example of intelligent documentation and benchmarks. Next time they should make an effort.
I don't see any actual science discussed.
That's because the entire movement is based around enabling the few at the cost of everyone else
Cool, how bout interview someone with a science background to speak about junk science.
Gender study would by consider as a junk science by Popper. XD
Shaming counter position studies for not having been peer reviewed recently while quoting your own studies from the 1950s. How are the John Money twins doing?
Change your username OP "pseudoscientific American" or "opoid crisis edition 2: supporter american" works better maybe "pharmaceutical industry thug American"
Can chickens cry?
Only when an egg layer is assumed to be female does it cry! That’s real science from a real dr.
If they watch this video they will.
I'm pleased to see this six minute appeal to authority fooled nobody.
LOL... learn what appeal to authority is. Now go fact check what was said vs. the reality of modern biology and psychology. What you really meant to say I'd you're pleased facts had no impact on the beliefs of many
@@rugbyguy59 Most of the arguments presented were appeals to authorities. In fairness what my snarky comment conceals is that the authorities were qualified, so it's not a fallacy, but it's still a weak method of arguing, also adding that nuance would have spoiled my comment. Sorry for being a wanker.
What a joke
"trans kids" like vegan cats, we know who's really making the choice...
1:54 there was never this crisis, what are you talking about, they had all the idea what makes male and female
now no one will trust you when you actually debunk junk science
Why do people think the data on gender youth medicine is so conclusive?! We need more studies. Its so sad to see what SA has become 😢
Surgeries shouldn’t be offered to minors. That’s not an attack on there views or rights. We don’t let children vote that’s a right. It’s sad this is even in question. It’s an irreversible life changing decision. It has nothing to do with there rights. It’s fucked to use your views to push this on kids. What is worse? letting someone one change there life forever? or making them wait to change there life forever? Stop acting like this isn’t that simple.
It has everything to do with rights. There are tons of different life changing decisions but you dont need to be 18 to make them.
Idea of chromosomes? Wtf
Is this video a joke?
John Money...
So sad to hear about the woke SA.
When someone disagrees with you, is it really helpful to use the word "work"? Just seems that the conservatives have to use the word without knowing what it really means.
@@susanclark1268 -No one is here to read your opinion. Please hang up and try again.
@@susanclark1268 where did he mention work
Lol, a video that talks about Science, but completely ignores science, this is trans typical of this movement, and Ridiculous.
These poor poor souls have a dysphoria over their body much like bulimia & body dysmorphia. They need to be coached through their condition, desensitized to their symptoms, reconditioned. Your physiology is you, it's your body & it's impossible to be born in the wrong body & mutilating a perfectly good healthy body isn't medicine, it's barbaric & absurd.
Pseudo-Scientific American
This is the actual junk science video.
Do you know what Scientific American is?
@@dimetronome a popular science magazine that is not unsusceptible to political biases.
@@dimetronome do you know what the scientific method is? Then there is also the inherent bias of peer review. I refer you to Lindsay and Boghossian who exposed the pitfalls of peer review. The beauty of the scientific method is its evidential basis and the fact that there are no absolutes. Having said that identity politics is firmly based in the social sciences not the natural sciences and therein lies the issue. The gender movement is not scientific and it’s influence is just another expression of postmodernism. On a street level it’s a pathway for mediocre (at best) students who graduated with meaningless degrees to make money on mainstream and social media. How intellectually dishonest.
@@ralphlong9443 yes, I know what the scientific method is and I understand the differences between the natural sciences and social sciences. I was simply disagreeing with simetra’s claim that Scientific American is “junk science.” You can disagree with the video for political reasons, but it seems like a huge stretch to say it’s “junk science.”
It's only "science" if someone can make a buck off it.
Scientific American used to be a very reputable scientific magazine. That is no longer the case, as far as I’m concerned you might as well be picking up vogue, the level of scientific professionalism is just about the same.
right now we have two types of people in this world one who knows their gender and the one who is confused about their gender
Might be right. But the question is why.
It was a psychiatric disorder until money got involved.
Unbelievable! Here I was honestly wanting to hear the other side's arguments and found a pit of void. Junk... Peterson... junk... blah... Peterson. That's not the way you fight for a cause... better yet, let's forget the fight word, because it is really uninteresting, ... this is not a way to make a point whatsoever. I got nothing from this! Really, really disappointed, because... well... SCIENTIFIC American, right? My mistake... misinterpreted the word 😔
Well, this whole presentation is an example of junk science.
junk*
Lol! It truly is HILARIOUS that we have fake science is telling us about “junk” science here🤦🏼♀️
Trans Kid - these two words shouldn't even go together
🤦🙄😜😂😂😜🙄🤦🤣🤣🤣🤣 I'd rather have someone read the bumps on my head and tea leaves