Administration wants to define transgender out of existence

I don't know you and I'm not going to pretend. I'd prefer to agree on this particular subject.

That said, perhaps your rejection of gender norms was cultural.

 

It's the design and conduct a Study part where some may view sociology as "less" rigorous of a science. For example, if one were to conduct a longitudinal study in sociology, it's practically a given that the study cannot be replicated with the same variables. It's conducting a study with the intention of verifiability and peer review which is one of the key components of the scientific method, promoting a hypothesis to a theory.

 

Well you and others are effectively dismissing it as invalid. I think that ethnographic research on so many individuals and groups, countless surveys, secondary data are all important to research on the topic of gender. I don't know that these are unverifiable means of research. I think that perhaps people in general are more commonly aware of physical science and the experiments that are done with it. But that doesn't make the social sciences less viable.

 

less rigorous ≠ invalid

I think all the methods of data and information that you mention are important as well but didn't you even concede that if we looked at different culture's view on gender, that it could be different?

So basically what I'm getting at is, assuming all variables, methods and constraints the same, if we made a survey and pooled people in the US and say pooled people in India, the likelihood of variability would be greater than if we performed a test with a microscope in the US and a test with a microscope in India.

 

I thought I did mention different cultures at some point. I studied cultural anthropology. We learned to embrace cultural relativism and not be ethnocentric (two buzzwords... I know). It just means accepting of other cultures as long as what they're doing doesn't infringe upon someone's human rights. India has a subculture dedicated to transgender individuals, but they have a different name for it. That's not all that's different. Many things are drastically different in India. The thing that stands out most in my mind is the Hindu religion is much different than Christianity; and that's not the only religion practiced there but it's the primary one. Anyway... thanks for clearing that up.

I imagine that a test with a microscope would reveal something universal about us, like that our DNA is almost exactly the same, or something else that doesn't change across geographic boundaries. But then I imagine a survey would produce dramatically different results even if people were asked the same exact questions. With all variables, methods, and constraints the same, of course. I guess we're saying something similar.

 

A doctor says its hereditary, their way of saying they have no clue how to fix it or what causes it

 

I agree ^
My eye conditions were put down to hereditary while nobody in my family had the condition.

 

And what on earth are you hoping to achieve with posts like this? Definition of sociology?

Whats that got to do with this thread?

 

Nothing to be honest. I'm ready to be on track again.

 

There's a guy at work who does this and damn if I know how. He leaves a big brown butterfly shape right on the back of the seat.

 

The case for the influence of allele on a macro level is fairly weak

This is what your DNA actually looks like



A photo, well taken with electrons not light, back in 2012. DNA packed in tighter than you have always led to believe with double helix diagrams

Alllele, genes, for the most part just code proteins etc on the small scale

There actually position relative to each other maybe just as important.

Concepts that say genes affect characteristics on a larger scale ( like hair color etc) is something we may have just simply have gotten wrong all along.

Their positions relative to each other, the genes copy, allele position relative to the gene part of the determination above cellular level


They kind of cheated with the Human Genome Project, assumed large chucks were dormant, copy and pasted parts, know the order of the 3 billion base pairs , but have no clue as to their physical position relative to each other

The short version: Thinking they know shit about how all of it works is bullshit