We've seen many articles similar to this, where social engineers try to convince the public that there is a genetic excuse for wickedness.
A recent "scientific study" is making its rounds on the internet in an effort to sway public opinion in favor of wicked, perverted bahavior. The shameless headline reads, "Gene linked to transsexuality identified". But the further one reads into the actual article, we see that the study backtracks from the absolute conclusion stated in the headline.
Such a statement is quite a backtrack from the conclusiveness of the headline, and the reason for the backtracking becomes clearer when the data collected in the study is examined.
Taking a good look at these percentages, one has to do a doubletake when reading the headline again. This data provokes several questions.
Is the "transsexual gene" dominant or recessive? Why is there only 7.8% difference in the number of transsexuals vs. non-transsexuals who have this gene? How come 44.6 percent of transsexuals do not have the transsexual gene? If the headline of this story would be remotely accurate, I would expect 100 percent of the transsexual group to have the gene, or at least in the high 90s.
The biggest question of all, why even publish a study that is as inconclusive as this one? Perhaps the answer lies in this statement.
What link have these scientists discovered between genetics and transsexuality? None. Just another example of social engineers trying to use "science" to indoctrinate as opposed to educate.
A recent "scientific study" is making its rounds on the internet in an effort to sway public opinion in favor of wicked, perverted bahavior. The shameless headline reads, "Gene linked to transsexuality identified". But the further one reads into the actual article, we see that the study backtracks from the absolute conclusion stated in the headline.
"In the largest genetic study involving transsexuals to date, researchers in Australia said they found that transexuality may be linked to the androgen receptor (AR) gene - which is known to modify the effect of the male sex hormone testosterone."
Such a statement is quite a backtrack from the conclusiveness of the headline, and the reason for the backtracking becomes clearer when the data collected in the study is examined.
"The longer AR gene was found in 55.4 percent of people in the transsexual group and 47.6 percent of the non-transsexual men, they wrote in an article published in Biological Psychiatry."
Taking a good look at these percentages, one has to do a doubletake when reading the headline again. This data provokes several questions.
Is the "transsexual gene" dominant or recessive? Why is there only 7.8% difference in the number of transsexuals vs. non-transsexuals who have this gene? How come 44.6 percent of transsexuals do not have the transsexual gene? If the headline of this story would be remotely accurate, I would expect 100 percent of the transsexual group to have the gene, or at least in the high 90s.
The biggest question of all, why even publish a study that is as inconclusive as this one? Perhaps the answer lies in this statement.
"There is a social stigma that transsexualism is simply a lifestyle choice, however our findings support a biological basis of how gender identity develops," said lead researcher Vincent Harley of Monash University's Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research.
What link have these scientists discovered between genetics and transsexuality? None. Just another example of social engineers trying to use "science" to indoctrinate as opposed to educate.
This just one study of many that lends credence to the fact that transsexuality is in essence intersexuality.
ReplyDeleteWhile a degree of skepticism is appropriate here, I should point out that cross-gender identification occurs across a wide spectrum of degrees.
ReplyDeleteWhat has been identified in this study is likely but one vector that impacts the development of gender identity in the brain.
Whether the gene is dominant or recessive is immaterial - sort of like it is with left handedness. The dominance or recessiveness of the trait tells us little about those who have the trait itself.
"psychological gender"???
ReplyDeleteOh my.
No wonder we are such confused in our postmodern world...
No wonder we are such confused in our postmodern world...
ReplyDeleteWhat's so confusing about accepting that the mind may differ from the body? (It's not like there's a lack of evidence out there)
It wasn't all that long ago that people believed that being left handed "could be corrected" too.
What is confusing is that attempt to appeal to the false religion of "psychology" (a proven failure) in order to try and blur the definitive differences between men and women. The whole "woman trapped in a man's body" nonsense has no scientific merit, despite the desperate attempt by this study to establish one.
ReplyDeleteBesides, in a naturalistic worldview, how does one approach the mind as separate from the body? The aforementioned study certainly doesn't help in that regard.
No thanks. I have better things to read.
ReplyDeleteIf you won't even read the evidence that's out there, then you are doomed to err out of ignorance.
One last thought for you - a bit of a thinking experiment:
ReplyDeleteTry to define gender - in a way that doesn't exclude significant groups of people that turn out to be exceptions in one dimension or another.