One consistent theme I will be using in this blog is referring to other, seemingly unrelated issues, to illustrate a point. That's just the way my mind works. (Drives my family nuts...)
One podcast I love to listen to is the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. I really enjoy the point of view that the panel of skeptics takes on science and pseudoscience, especially as it relates to events in the news.
And then on episode 140, they addressed the issue of the "pregnant man." For those of you who routinely skip news articles that look like they belong in the Weekly World News, this is the story of the individual in Oregon who claims to be a pregnant man. It turns out that the person in question is transgendered. He was born a woman, but had a partial sex change surgery. That is, breast reduction and is taking testosterone to allow for some facial hair. When I first read the story, I kept saying, "It's a woman. It's a pregnant woman. She has ovaries. She has a uterus. She has 2 X chromosomes. " As if a lack of breasts and facial hair is what it takes to be a "man." I think that is a huge insult to any unfortunate woman who has had to have a mastectomy following breast cancer. According to this point of view, you're now a man. (Especially if you have a mole with a few hairs growing in it.)
I was expecting Steven Novella to jump all over this news story, since he is an MD and I'm sure he took anatomy classes when he went to med school. Yet he started making excuses for the story, with comments about how there is more to gender than 2 X chromosomes, there is an entire spectrum of conditions to consider: appearance, self identity, emotional makeup, etc. The only one of the skeptics who followed my line of thinking was Jay Novella, who kept saying, "She's not a man. She has ovaries, She has a uterus, She has 2 X chromosomes." Rebecca Watson's reply to Jay was to ask over and over, "What's your problem, Jay?"
These people are educated. They understand biology. Their web site claims to discuss "the latest news and topics from the world of the paranormal, fringe science, and controversial claims from a scientific point of view." But their political bias to support the GLT agenda superseded any rational thinking as to the science.
So these intelligent skeptics are willing to change the definition of gender to fit a political and social viewpoint. Maybe they are willing to change the definition of Anthropogenic Global Warming to fit their political and social viewpoints as well.
I consider myself to be fairly reasonable and fact based, and I get really frustrated with the emotional and political approach to Global Warming, when the basic science seems to suggest that the entire IPCC report was faulty, and that Al Gore should look closer at the trees he's hugging, because he is currently barking up the wrong one. Given the critical viewpoint that the Skeptics' Guide has, and how quick they are to point out inconsistencies and logical fallacies, one would think that they would be at the forefront of pointing out the inconsistencies and logical fallacies in An Inconvenient Truth.
But they don't. When they do speak about Global Warming, it is either neutral, or follows the Gore agenda. How can a group of such intelligent people look at the facts and come up with a completely different conclusion than mine. Doubt starts to creep in. Maybe I'm the one who's wrong. After all, I like the environment...I don't want to pollute... I recycle... I don't drive an SUV. Maybe Al Gore's right after all. But then I remember the pregnant man. And that accurate science is less important then promoting the correct social agenda. And the doubt fades.
No comments:
Post a Comment