Tuesday, March 26, 2019

To Some, Religious Dogma is "Irrefutable Science"

“In point of fact, LGBT advocacy is only necessary because a group of people do not accept settled science.”
Ryan Scott Bomberger
via Radiance Foundation
Ryan Scott Bomberger (Radiance Foundation) writes: Planned Parenthood, LGBT Inc and Comprehensive Sex Miseducation. Mr. Bomberger is an anti-choice zealot so perhaps he is trying to ding Planned Parenthood. His sophomoric effort promotes ignorance:
“Your genitals don’t make you a boy or a girl.” This is Planned Parenthood’s “gender spectrum” sex ed pseudoscience, championed by leading LGBT organizations including the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Human Rights Campaign. It has rapidly become a religion among leftist politicians and Bible-evading churches where blasphemy can get you fined, fired and finished financially.
I left the link intact. It is to Planned Parenthood's How do I talk with my preschooler about identity? Bomberger's first sentence is in quotes which dishonestly posits that Planned Parenthood makes a specific assertion about genitalia. It does not. Mr. Bomberger should also be careful about what he labels pseudoscience. The fact that gender is a spectrum (I prefer continuum) represents the overwhelming consensus of science. In fact, I am unable to find peer-reviewed research to the contrary. Bomberger is presenting a logical fallacy. The fact that LGBT advocacy organizations “champion” established science has no effect whatsoever on the credibility of the underlying information.

In point of fact, LGBT advocacy is only necessary because a group of people do not accept settled science. If everyone recognized the fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are organic and involuntary; if everyone acknowledged that differences in sexuality are natural human variances then HRC could turn off its lights and donate its remaining funds to climate science.

Perhaps Mr. Bomberger is confused over gender in contrast to natal sex. He is certainly confused over what constitutes a “religion among leftist politicians.” Religion is a belief system based on faith. The concept of gender is based on science which is based on evidence. Then Mr. Bomberger portrays himself and others as a victims — presumably victims of the same people he disapproves of.

I do not care if people believe in the sanctity of peanut butter. A problem develops when those same people insist that I must accept the holiness of peanut butter and that a failure to do so makes me evil. Then, in the guise of religious liberty, uncivil opprobrium shall follow which, according to applicable mores, I am obliged to respect because it is proffered in defense of the faith.

If I call the undue criticism bigotry then the peanut butter worshipers will claim to be victims of godless perverts. Worse yet, if I note that, according to settled science, a percentage of the population is allergic to peanuts the allergy will be called an ideology and medical science will be deemed a cynical left-wing enterprise aiming only for political correctness. After all, the belief system must be accepted as correct over godless scientists.

All the above is a consequence of self-reinforcing piety.
Sexuality is a cult:
Welcome to the cult of transgenderism, where hucksters sell their poisonous ideology, the victims are scammed, and a liberal media spotlights the #fakenews face of the movement.
Oh my! About one-half of one percent of our citizenry are transgender. It is the only thing that provides relief from the extreme suffering that can be caused by gender dysphoria. There is no intervention known to medical science to address the condition. The amount of time and energy devoted to marginalizing a tiny percentage of the population is astounding.
Common sense should prevail
Does Ryan Scott Bomberger actually believe that people gratuitously choose to be transgender? There are no “hucksters” selling anything. The notion that being transgender is a “poisonous ideology” is spectacularly stupid. An ideology, like religion, is a belief system. People are transgender to mitigate the effects of a medical condition which can be objectively diagnosed.

The problem here is that Mr. Bomberger does not approve of these people because ancient texts do not recognize the separate construct of gender. Those same ancient chronicles would have people believe that Earth is the center of the universe. Over time people have been persuaded otherwise. The source of that persuasion has been evidence-based science.
Victims, victims, victims!
The Left controls so much of the discussion, because they control so many of the primary institutions that redefine the language—public schools, academia, the medical profession, legislatures, the entertainment industry and news media. Words are revolutionary. They brought the world into existence, start wars, bring healing, shape culture. They have meaning. When God spoke the words, “Let there be light”, the darkness was scattered. We see the reverse of that in our culture, today, as the truth that illuminates is blotted out. What happens when those with pervasive and largely inescapable influence decide to change the essence of words?
In other words: I don't like the science. I have no contrary evidence so I will attack the scientists, the science educators and the people who inform us of the science. This is an argument ad hominem which has nothing whatsoever to do with human sexuality. If Mr. Bomberger had an ounce of intellectual curiosity he would ask some questions including why people are LGBT in the first place. What does gender identity mean? What is the genesis of gender incongruity and so on.

Smart people ask questions. Dumb people have all the wrong answers.
Profound confusion:

“Submission to a dominating influence” is how Merriam-Webster defines the word. We live in a society that wants to pretend scientifically irrefutable truths (binary gender, only women can become pregnant, male and female are determined at fertilization) are hostile to the concept of freedom. So instead, in a world that is desperate for objective truth and moral clarity, thought leaders (including many pastors) prefer a subjective surreality where confusion is celebrated, and afflictions are affirmed.
Bomberger, a Black man, is trivializing slavery. Moreover he is promoting religious doctrine as truth and dishonestly claiming it to be “scientifically irrefutable.” The intellectual dishonesty is compounded by claiming that there is disagreement where none exists.

No one disputes the fact that only women can become pregnant. Whether or not sex is determined at fertilization is irrelevant and it is a complex question. Gender is not binary and that is the irrefutable science. For that matter, natal sex is not as binary as Mr. Bomberger would prefer. Indeed, about two of every 1,000 births have some form of sexual ambiguity.

Bomberger cannot accept the simple fact that religious dogma is not “objective truth.” The doctrine differs from religion to religion; sect to sect. One person's truth is another's apostasy. Some people believe that scripture is the literal word of their deity. Others believe that it reflects the times in which it was written. Whatever people choose to believe in that realm, those beliefs are based on faith.

Science is objective. It is based on evidence. Academic journals submit research to rigorous peer review. It is not perfect but it usually weeds out studies performed with shoddy methodology.

Science is not inerrant. No one claims otherwise. However, it is appropriate to base our opinions on the best available scientific conclusions. The fact that science is based on evidence does not mean that the evidence is always interpreted correctly. It is also possible to ask the wrong questions or to employ selective observation.

A very good example of this is Lisa Littman's study of something she called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. Experts in the field questioned Littman's methodology. It took six months to review the study and the result was a major correction to what was presented and how it was presented. The journal also apologized. This is how science is supposed to work.

The science regarding gender, gender identity and sexual orientation is settled. It is not a conspiracy aimed at political correctness or some other nefarious ambition. Gender is a continuum and a separate construct from natal sex. Gender is not a choice. Sexual orientation forms by the age of two. It, too, is not a choice. If, in the future, research proves otherwise then it will alter my point of view. Sexuality is not a belief system — Obstinacy is not required.

Related content:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.