Caitlyn Jenner

I've seen a lot of recent psychology articles that have been based off of newer studies which suggest that men and women actually aren't naturally psychologically different, and that any noticeably typical differences actually are because of social/cultural aspects. Which stance is more accurate? I don't know. One thing about psychology is that there's often not a definitive answer for stuff like this.

Before we go any further, let's discuss what gender means. Involving this topic, gender can mean one of three things:

-Someone's biological sex
-Someone's psychological gender
-Someone's social identity

Anyway, there's always debate on stuff like this among psychologists; while one psychologist might support the claim that there this no psychological gender and that the only "gender" that exists is biological sex and social identity, another psychologist might strongly support the claim that there are inherent psychological differences between the male and female sexes, creating psychological genders. Personally, I feel like the former of these stances is more accurate. I've seen a good amount of recent articles supporting this stance, and it seems logical overall.

This leads us to another question though: If gender (as a psychological identity) doesn't actually exist and there is no inherent difference between the minds of those of the biological male sex and those of the biological female sex besides cultural/social gender identity ones, how can someone have the mind of the opposite sex? If the minds of men and women (as biological sexes) are naturally the same (outside of social/cultural tampering), then it would be impossible for someone to be have the mind of the opposite sex.

In the past, I had thought that there were distinct psychological genders, but after putting more thought/research into it recently, I came to the conclusion that there likely is not actually gender (outside of biological sex and social identity). My argument for trans people used to be that their psychological gender is opposite to their biological sex, but with my change in opinion on gender itself, I had to develop a different argument/stance here as well. Instead of saying, "Their psychological gender is opposite to their biological sex," I think that a more logical argument based off of my psychological stance on gender is that, "Their biological sex doesn't match their psychological self." Even if psychological gender doesn't exist, it's still completely possible for trans people to simply feel like their body (biological sex) doesn't match who they mentally are; this doesn't have to be because of a psychological gender, just the individual's personality. I think that this is the case.

 

Didn't he want to be a guy again, idk
I guess that would make him a trans former

idk ill leave the thread sorry

 

I would genuinely love to see these. Links?

Regarding the rest of your post? I think the main problem is just that... we're still ignorant as a species on this topic. You eluded to this multiple times -- I'm not adding anything new here.

So, as I said earlier? If a black man had surgery to make his skin appear white? So long as he wants to be called a white man, he looks like a white man, and he might even 'act' like a white man? I'll go along with it. Until we have more hardcore scientific facts under our belt, I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt to Trans people. If only just for ease.

Even if we knew for a fact that a trans-man was 100% biologically a woman, so long as they tick all the boxes above? I'm easy. In my opinion, this is what the discussion should be about. Practicality. Similar principle when you call your friend Tony and not Anthony.

 

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=5382
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/science-confirms-obvious-men-and-women-arent-different
http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/02/05/men-and-women-may-not-be-so-different-after-all/51222.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...me_new_study_says_our_personality_traits.html
http://www.apa.org/topics/women-men/

(It looks like some of these are actually referencing the same study, but I'll leave them here anyway)

If you want to read a more heavily detailed version (which I haven't had time to read yet) of the study mentioned in the first link, look here: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/people/reis_harry/assets/pdf/CarothersReis_2012.pdf

Exactly, we're still so far from actually understanding how everything about ourselves works, especially concerning psychology and the brain.

Regardless of the eventual scientific outcome - whether we discover that trans people actually are mentally the opposite gender of their biological sex, whether we discover that psychological gender doesn't actually exist and that trans people are just psychologically unfit for their biological sex, or whether we discover that psychology can't necessarily back anything on being trans, I'll still support people who are. Regardless of the psychology, nothing negative comes from it and being able to convert to the sex that they're comfortable with is what trans people need to be happy, so how could I have an issue with that?

 

If I've read this correctly (it's late lol), in this we have made the assumption that there are only two possible genders, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong and disregard the following.
But according to tumblr's full list of genders (the website link contains forum-blocked language; I know it's not a scientific study or anything, just making a point. I think they have over a hundred different genders listed?), there are many, many more. C&H poked fun at this in (warning: cyanide and happiness)
So what is to be said for these genders, and gender-fluid people? I don't think it is possible for each person to have such a wildly unique brain that one person may be a cis male while another could be a trigender spacekin. So, could these genders exist as well?

 

No, my stance is not that there are two genders, but that gender doesn't exist. Like I mentioned earlier, the term "gender" can refer to one of three things, which can make this a relatively confusing topic, so I'll go over that part again for clarification.

"Gender" can mean:

-An individual's biological sex
-An individual's psychological/mental gender
-An individual's social identity

There are only two biological sexes (this might've been where the confusion came from), but biological sex is not what I, or any of the people who support the large list of genders on Tumblr, mean with the term "gender." Someone's biological sex is their physical body, but "gender" usually refers to one of the other two possible meanings, not this one.

Most of the time, "gender" refers to the person's psychological gender. When I say psychological gender, I'm talking about the psychological/mental component of a person's biological sex. Someone's psychological gender does not have to match their biological sex, which is why there are so many genders with only two sexes; however, my stance is that psychological gender does not actually exist. The studies that I mentioned earlier suggest that there are basically no inherent psychological differences between the two biological sexes (on top of the study already supporting this, it seems like a very logical assumption). If this is truly the case, and there are no inherent psychological differences, then psychological gender does not exist, because everyone is naturally psychologically the same (or, better phrased: everyone is without inherent psychological differences based on sex). People that are within a gender that is neither female or male are still included in this, because they are still part of one of the biological sexes, and if there are no inherent differences between the sexes, there are no inherent psychological differences between them and people of another psychological gender. TLR - There are no inherent psychological differences between the two sexes, meaning that psychological gender doesn't exist.

Now, let's address the last meaning of "gender:" an individual's social identity. "Genders" do still exist socially. There are certain social standards, cues, etc. for males and females. Because of this, some of these other genders are needed. For example, if someone feels like they don't fit into the social standards and rules set for a male, then sure, I'd definitely be supportive of them identifying as a different gender. I do feel like Tumblr might go too far with this though. In my opinion, there really only needs to be four social gender identities:

-Female
-Male
-Agender (Identifying as no gender)
-Gender fluid (Fluctuating between two or more of the other genders)

Well, my further opinion is that no social genders should exist. Everyone should just accept that everybody else is their own person and stop trying to use labels for this, especially now knowing that psychological genders likely don't exist. But, since the male and female social gender identities will continue to exist, we need an identity for people who don't feel comfortable identifying as either (which is where agender comes in) and an identity for people who fluctuate between being comfortable identifying as different social genders (which is where gender fluid comes in), but I'm not sure that we need more than that.

 

Ah, okay. I misunderstood that then. Myb.

 

Oh baby oh baby. I love science so much.

SO. I had the slightly laborious task of skimming through those links. I have some potentially frustrating news though, regarding them. The first 4 all seem to be different articles based on the same study. The 6th and final link, links directly to the study in question. This study does not tackle neurology whatever, as far as I can see. Just surface level, sociological questions such as taste, preferences, etc.

The far more interesting link, was #5. Which opened up a *yuuuuuge* can of worms. So science. Much studies. Wow.

From the top down, I googled the first paper than was referenced. One done in 2005 (which is recent in comparison to the others cited) by Hyde et al. While the supposed conclusion said that it found little difference between the genders, I have to whole-heartedly disagree. The meta-analyses overlaps pretty darn well with what we learned in Psychology as a teen.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-606581.pdf

I THINK a positive value on the far right is used to show a bias towards male domination. Negative, for female.

When looking at these results, it's no real surprise that men typically exceed expectation in Math and problem solving based skills. Women, in language and communication.

If you have any more studies, please send them my way. Though I'd like to request that we don't get any more copies of one another like last time. Thank you!

 

It seems to me that you are doing the same thing though. Every time someone has an opinion other than yours, you state that eveyone needs to be more open minded and accuse people of mockery. What are you doing? And its not like you will ever change your opinion on this topic either, so I don't see why other people have to line up with your though process.

 

No worries.

Damn, I said that a few of them were referrencing the same study, but I didn't look into them enough to realize that almost all of them were.

Yeah, the study covered psychology and sociology, not neurology.

Yeah, it seems like it probably does, so for the sake of the argument, let's assume that the positive value definitely does show a bias towards male domination, and vice versa.

Even then, the differences shown between males and females are still pretty minor. It's stated that, "close-tozero (d < 0.10), small (0.11 < d < 0.35), moderate (0.36 < d < 0.65), large (d = 0.66 –1.00), or very large (>1.00)," and "The striking result is that 30% of the effect sizes are in the close-to-zero range, and an additional 48% are in the small range. That is, 78% of gender differences are small or close to zero." Even though these differences might support the stereotypical differences between males and females, they are arguably too small to prove an actual sex-based difference. Another factor to consider is that these small differences could be society based (for example, boys who show signs of being mathematically inclined seem to receive a lot more encouragement than their female counterparts). Even if these small differences can be considered important enough to create an obvious distinction, how can we know that they aren't caused by society as opposed to biology?

I'd also like to add that not every psychology class teaches what yours did. I'm currently a teen and I just took a psychology course this semester, but what I learned about gender was different than what you did. Concerning gender, my course explained multiple stances, including ones that support the idea that there is a psychological gender based off of biology and ones that support the idea that gender is society-based. (Although, my course was a college-level one, so I can't accurately say what would be taught in a lower level course).

 

Wow, this is a 'like pool.' Just comment and bathe in the likes. I also like reading these comments. But I do have to say, all this is Burritoh Disapproved. :I nothing in particular, just a bad subject

 

Yeah, the study covered psychology and sociology, not neurology.

RE: Psychology? I would argue that there's an innate difference too. Dr. Gad Saad has a 150+ part series where he talks gender differences and the Evolutionary explanations between men and women. S'good stuff. Here's one on my favourites, along with a playlist to view for those curious.



Yeah, it seems like it probably does, so for the sake of the argument, let's assume that the positive value definitely does show a bias towards male domination, and vice versa.

Even then, the differences shown between males and females are still pretty minor. It's stated that, "close-tozero (d < 0.10), small (0.11 < d < 0.35), moderate (0.36 < d < 0.65), large (d = 0.66 –1.00), or very large (>1.00)," and "The striking result is that 30% of the effect sizes are in the close-to-zero range, and an additional 48% are in the small range. That is, 78% of gender differences are small or close to zero." Even though these differences might support the stereotypical differences between males and females, they are arguably too small to prove an actual sex-based difference. Another factor to consider is that these small differences could be society based (for example, boys who show signs of being mathematically inclined seem to receive a lot more encouragement than their female counterparts). Even if these small differences can be considered important enough to create an obvious distinction, how can we know that they aren't caused by society as opposed to biology?

Because they're so consistent between genders. Take 'Spatial Awareness' for instance. This is *so* distinct between the genders. It explains so much about our world, including our previously mentioned difference between the skills of male V female drivers. That running "sexist" joke about women being terrible parallel parkers? It's just nature! Again, no wonder, as the males of almost every species need to have spatial awareness as one of their top skills. They are the hunters. Females need to be good care-givers. Tending to their young. Surprise surprise, we find language and communication as strong-suits for women over men. It's all based in Evolutionary Biology. I believe that if you accept Darwinistic Evolution, you have to believe in gender differences. It's such an elegant yet simple explanation for why there differences between genders.

I'd also like to add that not every psychology class teaches what yours did.

Well, of course. I probably live in a different country to most, for starters!

I'm currently a teen and I just took a psychology course this semester, but what I learned about gender was different than what you did. Concerning gender, my course explained multiple stances, including ones that support the idea that there is a psychological gender based off of biology and ones that support the idea that gender is society-based. (Although, my course was a college-level one, so I can't accurately say what would be taught in a lower level course).

That just seems flatly false though, regarding socially learned traits. It's an element of education I despise -- trying to teach kids that certain behaviour is only imitated or learned from one's environment. Evolution is such a key factor here. Social differences are for sure affected by social structure. Psychology to a degree. But the dichotomy between "Nature V Nurture" regarding many behaviours seems like a false one. Billions of years of evolution is going to affect our desires, if you accept the Darwinistic explanation for it.

There was a Gad Saad 'episode' where he essentially talked about the desires of young girls to still prefer pink fluffy toys. Vice versa for boys. I'm sure it won't take much digging if you're interested.

 

Can you link that? That sounds really cool actually.

 

@SirCallow -- It seems to me that you are doing the same thing though. Every time someone has an opinion other than yours, you state that eveyone needs to be more open minded and accuse people of mockery.

Can I ask where you've got that impression from? Could you point to some examples, please?

If someone says they're right, and don't explain why? If they refuse to accept that they have flaws in their arguments (Such as contradictions or logical fallacies)? Then they *are* being closed-minded. Disagree with me, by all means. But always be open to changing your mind. Look at some of my recent comments in other threads.

"I'm asking, pleading with you here. For the 3rd time. Where is your evidence that GMOs are bad for you?"

"If you don't know how The Big Bang happened, why not just say so? Heck, that's where I am. I don't know either!"

"Let's be honest, together. Let's figure out what the answer is. What to believe. Because honestly? I don't know sometimes either."

"I want to be reasoned with. To have my mind changed if I'm wrong. If you have the silver bullet for anti-GMO arguments? I want to know!"

"Constantly, I find myself pleading to reason through disagreements with one another. To converge on what's "right", together. To figure it out... [because] I don't want to be wrong for a second more than I have to be. And if you have the silver bullet for being 'anti- gay sex', I want to hear it. Genuinely."

And its not like you will ever change your opinion on this topic either,

This is where I think you've crossed the line. You're claiming to know me, better than I do. Despite my own words, you're painting me in an incredibly negative light. It's not fair, and more important, it's simply not true.

I desperately want to have my mind changed. Because... if I'm wrong? I don't want to be, for 1 iota of a second longer than necessary. I cringe ever so hard, whenever I think about being wrong in the past. Propagating untruths or bad ideas. The guilt is overwhelming at times, for me. I want to be the best human I can be, and I feel the same way about the world too. I want it to be freakin' amazing. Which means doing the best I can to spread good ideas, and shoot down bad ones. Including my own.

so I don't see why other people have to line up with your though process.

Not "my" thought-process. "THE" thought-process. Evidence, logic and reason are the best things humans have to discern the truth. That's not just my opinion, as I'm typically happy to point out. It's absolute fact.

If you have something better, I would ask you to show it to me. But then again... that would be 'evidence'. How would you argue against using 'reason', without reasoning it through? This is exactly why you need these tools when arguing. Why 'Logical Fallacies' arn't just a patronising attempt for me to brush other people off. They're in fact, legitimate defeaters for fallacious arguments.

 

If it were absolute fact, everyone would believe it. Stuff like Evolution, Christianity, right and wrong, we just can't prove this kind of stuff. Ultimately, it's faith. Everyone has it. As much as you and I don't want to agree, theories such as this cannot be proven by science. And yes,

to a certain extent, everyone does this. I do apologize, as after re-reading my post, it did sound quite hostile.

As much as it may not seem like it, I actually really like talking to you. If you ever want to talk, I can give you my email, steam link, or whatever else, as I am more active elsewhere.

 

@SirCallow -- If it were absolute fact, everyone would believe it.

But some people still believe the Earth is flat.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies
Why are you just relying on your own intuition? Because you've just said something that is *factually* untrue. What you've just said implies, "The Earth is a spheroid." is not a fact. Because not everyone believes it. When it is.

The truth is not in any way, dependent on the number of people who believe it to be true (which would be a logical fallacy). Again, just think about what you've said for 2 seconds. If everyone believed Santa Claus was real, does that make him real? If someone didn't believe that cats exist, would that means "Cats exist" isn't a fact? Just because, "If this were an absolute fact, why doesn't everyone believe in it?".

Stuff like Evolution, Christianity, right and wrong, we just can't prove this kind of stuff.

Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life. As substantiated, if not more so, than the 'Theory of Gravity'.

Christianity is an ideology, in which *many* claims are made. Often false.

Ultimately, it's faith. Everyone has it.

Please stop relying on what you *feel* like is true, and be honest with me for a second. Because this conversation is not looking good. How do you know that I have 'faith'? What do you think I have 'faith' in? Where have you got that from?

From where I'm standing, there is nothing, not one thing, that I take on 'faith'. If you can show me something that I do, in fact take on 'faith'? Guess what? I'll stop believing in it! There is no claim that you can't take on 'faith'. No matter how crazy or ridiculous, you can believe in anything so long as you invoke 'faith'. Which is why it's such a weak "defense" (if one can even call it that).

As much as you and I don't want to agree, theories such as this cannot be proven by science.

But... Gravity is a theory. I'm not disagreeing because I 'want to'. I'm disagreeing because you're just incorrect here. Gravity is true, and it's a scientific theory.

As much as it may not seem like it, I actually really like talking to you. If you ever want to talk, I can give you my email, steam link, or whatever else, as I am more active elsewhere.

Not when you constantly assert things that arn't true. It's not pleasant to deal with presumptuous assertions with no evidence. So let's get a few things clear, if I may.

- Facts arn't in any way determined by the number of people that accept/believe in them.

- Not everyone has 'faith'. (Not in the sense that you're talking about)

- Theories can be proven by science.

You have a disturbing trend of asserting what you believe as true. Like earlier, where you claimed that I am closed-minded. You gave no examples, and didn't leave yourself any room to be proven wrong.

"its not like you will ever change your opinion on this topic either,"

While also painting me as bigoted:

"Every time someone has an opinion other than yours, you state that eveyone needs to be more open minded and accuse people of mockery."

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Bigamy.

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.[1][2]

E: Pretty please, can we have no more assertions? I'd super-duper appreciate it, because I'm happy to talk about anything so long as it's productive and civil.

 

If Evolution were true, it would support every aspect of scientific information ever discovered, which it doesn't. It also doesn't solve the issue of how the Universe was created, so for all you know, a god created the universe but allowed evolution to run its course. As much as you state that evolution is a fact, it's not. Even some Evolutionists state that the theory of Evolutionism has a hard time fitting in with certain scientific facts.

Impossible. No one can do this. We do not know how the world and life was created, we can only speculate.

Evolution. It's not a scientific fact, just as the existence of a god isn't.

Let's both become agnostic lol.

The theory of Gravity and the theory of Evolution are very different things. Comparing them is ridiculous.

I agree.

Not all of them, but certainly a great deal.

So do you. We both have no way of supporting our opinions. Neither of us can go back in time to watch the world be created. While we can make assumptions, assumptions are not always right. I honestly am not sure what I believe. I used to never question anything. I do know that I find the theory of Evolution preposterous, but I have no way to prove it's not true, and no one on this Earth has the knowledge to prove it or Christianity. So, I do not think it is possible to accuse me of asserting my beliefs, as I really don't hold to any one theory, I just think that some are more plausible than others.

I do apologize for the rudeness of my past post, but everyone is a bigot in a way. We all want to be right, and try to prove our idea and belittle everyone else who doesn't agree.

I don't need a definition, I passed 6th grade lol.

So that's a no? Kind of seems like you don't have enough support for further conversation than just telling me to quit asserting my opinion. :'(

If you want to talk, please continue in a convo. This thread is about Mr. Jenner, and we are turning it into a flame war.

 

lol

 

If Evolution were true, it would support every aspect of scientific information ever discovered,

Not necessarily.

which it doesn't.

AFAIK, it does. Could you tell me where it doesn't?

It also doesn't solve the issue of how the Universe was created,

That's because it's an explanation for the diversity of life, and not for the explanation for the origin of the universe. They are 2 completely different questions. Evolution is the current scientifically accepted explanation for the diversity of life. The origin of the universe is a completely different matter.

universe was created

AKA begging the question. "Created" implies a creator. Unfortunately, I believe you're unintentionally smuggling in suggestive language. I believe, 'How did the universe come to exist?' would be a more honest framing of that question.

so for all you know, a god created the universe but allowed evolution to run its course.

It would need to be demonstrated. Science doesn't just accept anything that hasn't yet been proven wrong. Using 'god' as an explanation for things we don't yet know is informally known as the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy. More generally, the 'Argument from Ignorance'.

As much as you state that evolution is a fact, it's not.

If "The Earth orbits the Sun" is a fact, then "Evolution happens in some form or another" is also a fact. If you were to present any evidence to discredit Evolution tomorrow, and it held up? You'd get a Nobel Prize. Evolution is as true as... Heliocentrism.

Even some Evolutionists

Disconcerting use of that word. I rarely hear of it used by anyone other than fundamentalist Christians.

Even some Evolutionists state that the theory of Evolutionism has a hard time fitting in with certain scientific facts.

Can I ask where, precisely? Because I've never heard that. That's a claim, and I'd like to ask you to prove it.

Impossible. No one can do this. We do not know how the world and life was created, we can only speculate.

How do you know that no-one on the planet can do this, without being able to read minds? Neither of us are experts. So if one of us is contradicting mainstream science, we need to explain why. If you think the science is wrong, you must show us. Please stop asserting it, without any evidence. Again, it's increasingly frustrating to have to ask you to back up these grandiose claims. You should be doing this automatically.

Evolution. It's not a scientific fact, just as the existence of a god isn't.

This is just flatly incorrect. Evolution is absolutely a scientific fact, and not *just* a theory.

Let's both become agnostic lol.

'Agnostic' is an adjective, not a noun.

The theory of Gravity and the theory of Evolution are very different things. Comparing them is ridiculous.

They are very different things, obviously. But they're both theories and facts. Gravity is a scientific theory, and it's a fact.

I agree [that facts arn't in any way determined by the number of people that accept/believe in them.]

Then why did you claim differently just a few posts ago?

Not all [theories can be proven by science], but certainly a great deal.

#NotJustATheory

So do you [have a disturbing trend of asserting what you believe as true].

I don't think I have done. Can you please give me an example of where I have done so? We should, where possible, give links, arguments, reasons. You're just telling me what you think, instead of (more importantly) why you think it.

We both have no way of supporting our opinions.

That is demonstrably untrue, from this thread alone. Please speak only for yourself.

Neither of us can go back in time to watch the world be created. While we can make assumptions, assumptions are not always right.

Evolution is not an 'assumption' though. It started as a well substantiated hypothesis, and has only grown from strength to strength.

I honestly am not sure what I believe. I used to never question anything.

I don't think you've shown skepticism at all in this thread. It's been pure cynicism thus far.

Upon looking through our conversation, you've only asked 2 questions. Both of them having nothing to do with the subject matter. One of them was: "What are you doing?", and the other one was, "So that's a no?" [regarding more conversations between us]. This is why I think you havn't been skeptical. You seem to prefer assertions over questions.

You don't accept the science on this issue, you have yet to present evidence or argument for what you believe, and you accuse me "no matter what I say" of being unable to present evidence of argument either. When I clearly have done. I feel like I'm wasting my time here. Give me some hope. Please stop asserting what you believe as fact, and then give us the explanations behind your beliefs.

I do know that I find the theory of Evolution preposterous

That's a fallacy. The truth is not determined by your refusal to accept it, or by how credible the claim sounds to you.

, but I have no way to prove it's not true, and no one on this Earth has the knowledge to prove it or Christianity.

This is incorrect. I'm no expert (by any means) but here's a post that I submitted on November the 4th, 2015. Where I submitted my own evidence for Evolution.

DNA/Genes - There's a gene that is found in all mammals, 'FOXP2'. And if you count the number of genetic differences in the DNA code then it forms a hierarchy. A family tree. The closer we think we're related, the fewer differences in the genetic code. This is what scientists often mean when they say "We're 99% genetically identical to a chimpanzee".

(Please start at 8:41)

Artificial Selection - Humans guiding the evolution of other animals. We've domesticated dogs and created unique breeds. We've bred horses and greyhounds to produce better performers. The bananas that we eat today would have been inedible without human interference. We often do this with fruit and vegetables, to give us better produce. GM-foods are a great example of human-guided evolution.

Chromosome 2 - Humans have 23-pairs of chromosomes. Chromosome 2 is the second largest, and a result of end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. (With Neanderthals and Denisovans having 24 pairs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Vestigial Limbs and the Evolution of Eyes - Animals that have 'useless' limbs or organs. Fish with limbs that resemble tiny feet/legs, or mammals that have toes that 'never' touch the floor and provide benefit to the individual. The best or most popular example? The human appendix. One day, it did have a purpose. To assist in breaking down tough food, from the days where we were hunters. Wisdom teeth, too.

(Please start at 20:00)

The human eye is often cited as a problem for evolution, when this couldn't be further from the case. This video explains it much quicker and more effectively than I could.



(Please start at 1:08)

Ring Species - Species are defined by their inability to interbreed. If they can't mate and produce offspring, they're not of the same species. Ring species, is when an animal in one location, can breed with the animals in the location next to them. Then, these animals can breed with the animals adjacent to them. etc. Eventually, when the locations loop back round, the animals are unable to breed, showing a change in species. This is because the slightly differing environments offer different environmental pressures, which leads to very small evolutionary changes. Eventually leading to a change in species. http://davehuth.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Screen-shot-2011-10-14-at-12.20.58-AM.png

A simpler way to imagine it? Red can breed with Orange. Orange can breed with Yellow. Yellow with Light Green. Light Green with Green. But Red and Green cannot breed with one another. Which shows us that there have been some evolutionary changes along the way (if it wasn't already obvious).

Fossil Record - This one speaks for itself. We have bones and fossils that show the way that creatures have evolved over time. Great Apes to modern humans is a typical example, but here's a quick one of the modern horse. https://dr282zn36sxxg.cloudfront.net/datastreams/f-d:a9d7fc1c15ac2b3ead1607b823ac2d11f1ffb5041ea4c4a7f98111a9+IMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD+IMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD.1

The evolution of Fruitflies and Bacteria - Real, observable evolution happening before our very eyes. The paranoia surrounding the evolution of bacteria, and the diseases that were once treatable, but have evolved to become immune to the existing vaccines. It's a real threat to humanity. It's why a doctor will insist that you finish your medication, days after feeling better. Why? Because if only a few cells of the bacteria survive, the few that were JUST strong enough to survive the power of the treatment will multiply to create a generation of bacteria will be much stronger than before. Basically, those outliers that were only JUST strong enough, will now become the 'norm'. And the new outliers of this generation will be much stronger.

I believe that I've done a good job of providing proof. If you disagree, could you please highlight the areas you disagree with then explain why you think they're wrong?

So, I do not think it is possible to accuse me of asserting my beliefs, as I really don't hold to any one theory,

I disagree. I think you have "asserted your belief", in almost every sentence. An assertion is a claim without evidence or argument. Up til now, I can count 10 or 11 assertions. Claims without explanation. I think it would be great if we could see:

1) I disagree with "Claim X".

2) I disagree because (A). (B). (C).

3) Here are some links/sources/examples, to support the reasons I've given.

What do you disagree with? Why do you disagree with it? Can you prove that your reasons are well substantiated?

I just think that some are more plausible than others.

Again, that's the 'Argument from Personal Incredulity' fallacy. Here are 4 examples of claims that seem preposterous at face value.

- Water can cut through steel.

- Wood can be 'welded' together with a controlled detonation.

- The faster you go, the slower that time passes by.

- Red light + Blue Light + Green Light = White Light. If you do the same with paint, it makes Black.

These are all incredibly implausible and hard to accept. But they're all true. If the origin of the universe was just 'common sense'? We wouldn't have/need Physicists. We have them, because a lot of the tough questions about the universe are counter-intuitive.

I do apologize for the rudeness of my past post, but everyone is a bigot in a way. We all want to be right, and try to prove our idea and belittle everyone else who doesn't agree.

Again, please speak only for yourself. If you want to belittle others, and only stick to your own values? That's your call. But you can't justify your actions by saying, "Oh, well everyone does that. So it's okay if I do it too". That's the 'Appeal to Popularity' fallacy, and the 'Tu Quoque' fallacy wrapped up into one. If you thought that someone else was a belittling bigot, it wouldn't give you the right to be one too.

I don't need a definition, I passed 6th grade lol.

This is a public conversation. Others might benefit from the definition of that word. Also, it's good to know that you accept this definition, and that this is what you meant when you implied I was a bigot.

So that's a no? Kind of seems like you don't have enough support for further conversation than just telling me to quit asserting my opinion. :'(

I enjoy having productive conversations. That's what both of us need to be striving for. We need to give reasons, describe, explain, prove, etc. Without these, I'm just involved in a conversation with someone that keeps telling me I'm wrong.

With this in mind, I think this has to be my 'last chance' at having a productive conversation here. Please, if you can, don't make a claim without explaining why. Why you believe it, why you think you're right, and where the facts are to back you up.

If you want to talk, please continue in a convo. This thread is about Mr. Jenner, and we are turning it into a flame war.

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm only interested in public conversations, thank you. If you could quote any of my recent posts where you think I've been guilty of turning this into a "flame war", I'd appreciate it.

 

But if you accept Darwinistic Evolution, you also have to believe that evolution is an ongoing process. Even if humans originally evolved with distinct psychological differences between the sexes, that doesn't mean that those differences will always exist. In our society, psychological differences between the sexes haven't been needed in a long time, so perhaps humans have slowly evolved to the point that there are no longer any inherent psychological differences. The differences that remain could simply be things that are influenced by society.