I was thinking earlier today about the sketchy nature of "gender" and how it's used by people to almost be like someone referring to the color of their "aura" or pontificating about the nature of their "soul." It reeks of some of the "mentalism" that the Behaviorists in psychology (e.g., Watson, Skinner) sought to remove. The Behaviorists may have taken too strong a stance, but I think "gender" may be exactly the sort of concept they tried to remove from psychology since it's supposedly divorced from external behavior and, going by the cognitive route, it's merely based on a "feeling" that apparently doesn't tie to anything biological; it's entirely a self-report without anything externally observable. Even cognitive psychological research in perception and memory, etc, doesn't rely on self-reporting.
This "non-binary" stuff seems to have no biological referent and doesn't even seem to really have anything to do with behavior. It's all, as stated, just a person's "feelings." It's true that the concept of sex is messier than a lot of pundits on the right give it credit for (look up Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome for examples of very feminine XY females), but human behavior IS based on our biology to a large extent (as much as the left wants to deny it at every opportunity) and certain behaviors are more or less associated with belong toeither the male sex or the female one. What causes transgenderism or why do people claim to be non-binary? Shouldn't we have more research done on the nature of these things before he rush headlong into embracing them and celebrating them at every opportunity without any reservation? Non-binary I almost dismiss out of hand due to it seeming so evolutionarily and biologically implausible, and I'm sometimes skeptical over why transgendered people actually do what they do--I've seen multiple people switch to fit into a new peer social justicey peer group.
Seems like bullshit.
But the APA obviously has stances on transgender and supports the notion of the "gender nonbinary." How much of the stances of these organizations is really based on "the research" and not the political machinations of the people that make up the organizations? Not merely the APA, but other organizations, even those like the WHO or other supposedly neutral yet highly respected organizations. Anyone with any behind-the-curtain insight or special knowledge of these things?
This "non-binary" stuff seems to have no biological referent and doesn't even seem to really have anything to do with behavior. It's all, as stated, just a person's "feelings." It's true that the concept of sex is messier than a lot of pundits on the right give it credit for (look up Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome for examples of very feminine XY females), but human behavior IS based on our biology to a large extent (as much as the left wants to deny it at every opportunity) and certain behaviors are more or less associated with belong toeither the male sex or the female one. What causes transgenderism or why do people claim to be non-binary? Shouldn't we have more research done on the nature of these things before he rush headlong into embracing them and celebrating them at every opportunity without any reservation? Non-binary I almost dismiss out of hand due to it seeming so evolutionarily and biologically implausible, and I'm sometimes skeptical over why transgendered people actually do what they do--I've seen multiple people switch to fit into a new peer social justicey peer group.
Seems like bullshit.
But the APA obviously has stances on transgender and supports the notion of the "gender nonbinary." How much of the stances of these organizations is really based on "the research" and not the political machinations of the people that make up the organizations? Not merely the APA, but other organizations, even those like the WHO or other supposedly neutral yet highly respected organizations. Anyone with any behind-the-curtain insight or special knowledge of these things?
