RE: Dawkins loses humanist title
April 22, 2021 at 8:29 am
(This post was last modified: April 22, 2021 at 8:32 am by Reforged.)
(April 22, 2021 at 8:18 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:(April 22, 2021 at 8:09 am)Reforged Wrote: If a males personal inclination from as young as he can remember is toward the female gender can that inclination partially be linked back to the genetics responsible for his brain chemistry and sexual development?Who knows, but it would hardly matter, since..at least in dawkins formulation...explicitly, he's a man regardless of how long or when or why he feels whatever way he feels.
Perhaps this is what the aha took issue with?
Quote:If a large team of well funded social scientists study a culture long enough is it possible they could gather statistical data on what aspects of that culture influence gender?They have, spoiler alert, it's not biological essentialism. Let wonder lead you to knowledge.
Quote:If both of the answers to these questions was yes could you more accurately predict a studied individuals desired gender based on genetic and cultural data without meeting them?Probably, and all of that discussion would be irrelevant to the humanists concern for trans humans in thei capacity as an advocay group for a political and ethical ideology, except insomuch as bigots use it as ammo in that discussion.
"Discuss."
Which may... be what the aha.... had an issue with.
Oh this is separate from Dawkin's stuff. I'm just fascinated by how assured you are that genetics can't explain these things given time.
I sort of have a stake in genetics, I'm pursuing a career in research. Nothing I've seen so far would lead me to believe these questions weren't at least within our grasp.
I'm also well aware those sorts of studies have been done and continue to be done, that was my point. That science is an endless pursuit that gives us more understanding and a better capacity to make predictions the longer it continues.
So I can really not quite square that circle you've created. Dawkin's would have access to far more data than either you or I would. He would have access to other scientists of the highest caliber as well as an understanding of genetics that would dwarf pretty much anyone you could ever hope to meet.
How do you know genetics can't at least partially answer these questions and that other scientific disciplines can't fill in the other parts?
It seems to be doing rather well with most questions so far.
EDIT: Oh wait, my mistake. You answered their question for them.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred.
- Abdul Alhazred.