Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

With the recent Bill Nye new netflix show gain some controversy, there's alot argument or comment on how "this is not science"

In a nutshell, people uses the scientific fact that SEX is determined by chromosome, This true when describe SEX. When describe gender however, thats different story. In the western world gender and sex is consider one same things, cause there's only two gender are recognize by society due to the bible. However as time progress, antrophological such Mead and Kaberry noticed that some isolated tribes have a different definition on gender. The best case for this is the bugis tribe in sulawesi where there are five gender (Graham Davies, Sharyn (2006). Challenging Gender Norms: Five Genders Among Bugis in Indonesia. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. Wadsworth Publishing. p. xi.). But this tradition are now consider tabu due to it's cotradicting teaching of Islam. This 'tradition' is not a new modern "trend", they have been existing way before the colonizing days.

I feel like I've asked someone this before (I think it was Rivers?), but I can't remember. Is social science an actual science? Because you can't tack on 'science' to an ideology to attempt to increase its legitimacy (Scientology). Does it measure and record? Does it observe phenomena and attempt to solve its mystery by conducting experiments? Does it reject hypotheses which fail the test? Otherwise, how can we determine the back-and-forth badminton battle of this gender debate? We're simply tackling the topic based on nothing more than philosophy, and nobody has the right answer in philosophy.

Gender of course resides in the brain, so its main center of study is Psychology. However, this referenced study by Graham Davies and Sharyn appears to be Sociological in nature, as it seems to me they defined five genders out of a cultural satisfaction, not as a solution to mechanisms within the mind. So if I have that right, the study is simply an isolated, sociological case, and cannot be admissible in a broader concept.

Back to Bill Nye. I didn't watch the pilot episode, but my outside-looking-in viewpoint is the title and the center of the controversy. The show is titled "Bill Nye Saves the World". Is Gender seriously being considered such a vital topic alongside the same shelf as what's actually world-saving in nature, which is teaching the fundamentals of all kinds of scientific fields? When Dr. Tyson took the reins for the next generation of Cosmos, he fucking did just that, he Cosmo'd. He explained the fundamentals of astronomy, biology, how mankind came to acquire the tools of science in the first place, AND Climate a real "world-saving" issue. When Bill Nye hypes up this science show and does not deliver, it does not reflect well on a nation already skeptical on Scientific issues.

Problem is, due to certain trends, the possibility of genders beyond the most traditional brings thoughts of some really awful/insane people that aren't right, so when a genuine point about it is brought up it becomes hard to disassociate it with those people, and thus it's usually directly dismissed.

No one wants to even ponder the possibility the stargenders had a point, even if they don't really but actual scientists with evidence do; too close for comfort to many.

While social science can't measure social onteraction the do however ise obsevation partisipant where the researcher observe and interact with the subject to understand their point view. Antropology and sociology is not a study that endorse an idea, but it explain different point of view and culture without any subjectivity. That's why there is a lot subjects that contradict with both liberal and coservative idea.

On the bugis note however, the main point about that is gender can have different definition in different culture even though there is only 2 sex. For western coservative gender identity is catogrize by your sex, for bugis however is labelled by your social

And btw bugis is not only one who have different definition on gender like ticuna people in colombia

I don't normally think much of NDT's twitter "insights", but there was a tweet he made a while back that I thought was interesting.

I wouldn't personally frame it quite like this. I'd present it more along the lines of social science having a less accessible fabric to cut from than physics. But the idea, I suppose, is the same.

Social science does not have to be a soft science. It is perfectly within the realm of possibility for human behavior to be studied using the scientific method. But humans are not physics problems, where a basic model can be made and then fine-tuned to account for a dozen or so significant variables. Human behavior is endlessly rhizomatic and features too many variables to count, let alone consider. We understand less about the brain than we do about the cosmos.

But social scientists still have to do something, don't they? The alternative is sitting around and waiting for neuroscience to fully understand how the brain works, by which time we'll all be too dead to care. So social scientists use far more subjective methods of reaching consensus in their field. The subjectivity allows politics to seep in, politics turns to partisanship, and partisanship turns into dank garlic bread memes about how there are only two genders.

TL;DR: the complexity of human behavior results in garlic bread.

I think the problem is is that people tend to associate modern activism and pursuits of social justice with the toxic vocal minority that typically gets the most amount of attention.

The gender thing is a very nuanced and complex topic, but trying to talk about it has become so toxic and convoluted that most people's basic instinct when the topic come's up is to shut their ears off and immediately go on the attack or get defensive.

There's also been a big push for scientists to become more involved in political issues, and that has split people.

Nah, that's wrong.

As of recently, I have been told that I am unfit to moderate a Christian community because I am trans, by the owner of a large Christian community. I've been disrespected many times, without any prompting from me. Other people bring up LGBT issues far more than I do, and half the time, it's negative. I don't prompt it most of the time, but it happens. Comments such as "'transgenders' are insane!" and "not really a girl" are fairly par for the course at this point.

I think some others might care about it now than I do. In fact, the person who said I was unfit to moderate a Christian community made a point that this great moral decline seen by accepting people like me is a good reason to care far more than I do.

So… Somebody in the whole world does care without me shoving it in their face. They care quite a lot, actually. And this absolutely carries over to more than my limited experiences, unless I've met every single person who would be a jerk about this.

I could point to various events to show I haven't. For example, a recent news story about a trans woman being denied food at a soup kitchen because she was wearing a dress – not for any disruptive behavior but wearing a dress. Reporters questioning also led them to learn that this Christian group has refused service to trans people in the past.

I think you're confusing your own feelings for the feelings of others. Not everyone thinks and feels as you do. Some people do care, and others like Bill Nye, so this sucks for them.

First of all, I mean no disrespect, but how exactly would an LGBT person fit in a church? It's consciously, explicitly violating their doctrines. What's even the point? Secondly, you might have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that no one will be mean to you. People are mean, and it is an issue. But what I meant is, you can't make a show about gender identities, or make it a nationwide issue, or whatever, and expect people to care. People just don't relate. Don't forget that despite the enormous media exposure LGBT people are a tiny minority.

First of all, I mean no disrespect, but how exactly would an LGBT person fit in a church? It’s consciously, explicitly violating their doctrines. What’s even the point?

There are many churches that are okay with LGBT people. Here's a list of bigger ones:

• Episcopalian Church
• Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
• Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
• United Church of Christ
• United Methodist Church (although a bit to a lesser extent – support for nondiscrimination practices, fully welcome in the church, but as to if LGBT people can be ordained or if same-sex marriages can be blessed is an ongoing issue that will at least in part be handled in 2019.)

Secondly, you might have misunderstood me. I’m not saying that no one will be mean to you. People are mean, and it is an issue. But what I meant is, you can’t make a show about gender identities, or make it a nationwide issue, or whatever, and expect people to care.

But people do care. Have you not seen the Nye comments? Maybe you did just misspeak, but you said

Nobody in the whole world cares about who you are, or how you feel, or what your preferred pronouns are. Well, if you are lucky your family or friends might. People are fine with what you are if you don’t push it down their throats, otherwise you become yet another annoyance to deal with in their life.

This is leagues different from "nobody wants to watch a show about it". This is a personal thing – individual. Nobody cares about if a person is trans or whatever, which as I showed, is absolutely wrong. That's different from "people don't want to watch a show about it". People aren't consistently mean to you over something yet don't care about that something.

At this point we're straying off topic though, so I'm gonna try to re-rail here.

I concur a lot with what has been said already, but I have a new thing to add on: sometimes people just don't want to hear it. It's easier to do that with social sciences because of the sort of stigma against them than other sciences. I saw someone before link a article from a prestigious academic journal and it was utterly dismissed with "basic biology", because that apparently makes sense? I wasn't aware that citing bio101 knowledge makes you more knowledgeable than a group of scholars in the same field. But, that's what people do when the knowledge gathered by people who have devoted their lives to a topic contradicts with what laymen in regards to that field want to hear.

None of us are really fully immune to this desire, I think, so don't take this as "I'm enlightened and you're a facts denier!" It's just a sad way humans tend to work, and something we have to push against. It's especially easy to do this in social sciences, which is why social sciences are trashed a lot whenever their findings contradict what we want to hear.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

The entire Bible is the story of how God has welcomed all of humanity, so how is trans against their doctorines. Sounds like a cheap excuse from you to reject what you can't accept. I'm no religious person in the slightest, I just believe pulling the religion card in the gender debate is absolute horseshit.

But what I meant is, you can’t make a show about gender identities, or make it a nationwide issue, or whatever, and expect people to care. People just don’t relate. Don’t forget that despite the enormous media exposure LGBT people are a tiny minority.

The bathroom debate was hot and happening not too long ago, seems to me it's still a nationwide issue namaste. Also he covers various topics in his show, yet people get more triggered from that one topic than Tumblr after Trump's election victory (case in point: yourself).

Edit: Oh shit Rivers meant derailing as in replying to that post. My apologies.

It took literally decades for gays to get accepted and even they are still having issues with it. Trans is the next in line, and social studies is the easy scapegoat.

On the internet however the entire "SJW" term has made it difficult for social studies to get accepted. Accepting social studies comes with the risk of being seen as one of dem "es jee doubleyuus" and people rather not take that risk, instead going with mocking them.

Other than that it's cool to read about how the brain can be wired in a way that people see themselves as a different gender. The human mind is an enigma, and not one the usual sciences care about.