The problem I see is in the topic

Science
Argument
Conservative

In most cases does not compute...

I have a degree in science myself and would have loved to go into gastro physics but alas.

On that chart, libertarians whether left or right leaning, would be in the middle, rather than the right of the x axis.  So their ethics are much more closely aligned with liberals than they are with conservatives.

The chart isn't my opinion anyway.  It's from the study that is discussed in the linked article.  In my experience, it is pretty accurate in describing population means.  Obviously, within the populations there will be individual outliers.

Personally, I am more libertarian than liberal myself.  I call myself a liberal though because I don't think supporting libertarian candidates serves any purpose in opposing the party whose values I believe are antithetical to either human decency,  common sense, or the values upon which this country was founded.

Quote from: Obfuskatie on August 03, 2016, 01:20:13 AM
I try not to argue with people who see me as less than. If they have a real/legitimate question that isn't invasive, I answer what I can. Otherwise I simply avoid politics and remain cordial. Honestly, my friends actually fight and argue more for my sake than I do, I typically just walk away.

Besides, logic and facts were invented by us liberals to confuse and make conservatives feel silly. A lot of them have no time for our shenanigans.

     Hugs,
- Katie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's so funny! My friends do the same if someone tries to say something rude or hateful. I've given up explaining everything to my immediate family they just will never understand. I buried that rock a long long time ago and moved on. I still will try and explain to people who want to know because to me it's still learning even though they are probably not caring one way or the other. I think this will be less of an issue hopefully in the next decade for us. I still believe we are the last to fully get rights like everyone else in this world. Although from the other side they feel the same way like talking to a brick wall. I always wonder how the founding fathers would view us because men wore makeup and wigs back in the day and I know there had to have been some that were able to pass back then.

There are a number of issues with this thread that have me cycling through anger, frustration and resignation.

First, by using the terminology conservatives we are allowing many of the respondents to engage in othering and depersonalization.  This allows them to be spoken of as if they were a mindless mob of pitchfork weilding medieval peasants.

It also allows you to speak of them in exactly the manner that you get upset over when spoken about.  Conservatives are individuals with their own particular nuance.  Many are uninformed, many are religious, many may not agree with the science.

It was put forth that most conservatives won't understand or will argue against science and facts, or won't use logic, falling back on their own cognitive biases.  This same statement could be said of most of humanity, regardless of grouping.  Most of the indivual who don't/won't listen are rooted in their own subjective experience and feelings.  Their feelings are no less valid than your own, whether or not it aligns with the science or logic.  By automatically discarding them as invalid you remove the potential for further dialogue.  This is indicative of some of the current problems in America.  We don't treat people with equal respect and seek to achieve a solution.  Instead we bicker and demarcate people into artificial binaries.

This thread has very little that is a constructive answer to the original question.

I am not here to offend others, but after reading so much of this over the past few days, most of you should be ashamed and realize you are being every bit as guilty as those you decry.  I had hoped for a while this thread would be locked, but alas no luck.

It must be nice living in a State where you don't have to hear people at work discussing how they will shoot a trans woman if they ever see one in a bathroom. 

I'm happy that there are such places.

Well said Amber. Deborah, I have driven over half the country very recently, to celebrate the start of my hrt. my son and myself went on a vacation, we stopped in some pretty redneck places, in those places I saw everything from trans women, trans men, guys holding hands etc, and no one cared. In fact one of the things that inspired me to transition was the morning I saw a old man that looked like santa clause riding a bike in a bikini and none gave him a second look. But that is one of the reasons I'm a conservative,  I don't care what people say to me, but if someone lays a hand upon me, well I got something in my pocket for that

Well you don't have to be a conservative to be in favor of self defense or to own guns.  I have a whole cabinet full of those.  On the other hand, you don't have to look far or hard to see that it is exclusively conservatives that are passing laws to deny LGBT rights or to protect themselves when they deny LBGTs service.  So I guess it's nice that you saw an old man in a bikini.  It would be nicer if this trans woman wasn't denied care in a hospital on religious objections.  http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/affordable-care-act-rules-arrive-to-combat-health-care-discrimination-in-memphis

Okay, this was not a thread about self defense and gun ownership.  This is about which scientific evidence/arguments to use when dealing with conservatives.  Whether one identifies as liberal or conservative themselves is moot.

The major push back against LGBT rights by conservative politicians and groups is unfortunate and the likely reason for much of the invective espoused in this thread.  Dealing with those groups is not the point of the thread per se.  Those groups have a vested political interest in not accepting any argument counter to their own.

However, that does nothing to further the original intent of the discussion, as I see it, of what evidence is most effective to those who are conservative in their beliefs.

As I posted above, I have tried arguing with evidence before.  One guy even agreed with my medical arguments.  His response: then they are abnormal and need to act normal.

Another guy in my office I gave a very lengthy explanation, scientific and medical.  He listened and nodded his head politely as if he understood.  A month later he was discussing shooting trans women in the restrooms.

So, what is the point of even trying.  It's simply a waste of oxygen and brain cells.

n = 2.  Not a very compelling sample size.  I understand that is your experience and opinion.  I disagree with extrapolating and generalizing that to a population of approximately 1/3 of the registered voters.

You are failing to see the point I was making, this line argumentation is not constructive.  The vitriol in this thread would likely make anyone who was conservative, religious, or similar extremely frustrated and feel unwelcome.  Many are engaging in the same closed mindedness they decry conservatives of.  All based on subjective beliefs.

Many conservatives are compassionate everyday people who, while they may not agree with the science, don't wish to intentionally harm others and their rights.  Most are misinformed and ignorant of the nature of trans issues.  Even more are ignorant of how the laws disenfranchise our rights and the negative impacts thereof.  Someone has to do the work of educating those people.  It certainly is not the media.  They are not going to seek this knowledge independently, either.
So rather than allow this to devolve into a screw the ignorant thread, perhaps we can add value to the discussion as a very few other posters have done.

Not that my personal experience is relevant to the overall. Discussion, but yes I have and do deal with people who threaten to shoot transwomen entering the bathroom.  My neighbor  and her 18 year old daughter both said that to my face (I was in guy mode).

Amber already covered half of what I wanted to say, there are idiots on all sides. And I agree you cant argue with idiots, and it's usually the idiots that have the loudest voice, but calling someone a idiot because of their religious or political beliefs is the fasted way to make them disregard anything you have to say. I'm sorry you have to deal with people like that, but at the same time for every one person that thinks like that I'll show you 10 who don't.

Quote from: Jenny07 on August 06, 2016, 04:52:36 AM
The problem I see is in the topic

Science
Argument
Conservative

In most cases does not compute...

I have a degree in science myself and would have loved to go into gastro physics but alas.

Agreed. I find the original question pretty absurd and mildly offensive. For my sins, I eschewed a career in the sciences for IT. Ah, regret... 

seeing things from their point of view,
It's obvious why transitioning is considered to be a form of mental illness. because it's not within the established standard of human behavior/emotion.(based off of society and not reality )

or it's not a normal behavior/state of mind/ whatever you want to call it.

Logically speaking, there really is no correct way to act like a girl, nor is there a correct way to act like a boy. these were just roles established in a socially constructed reality. (society)

if I had to take a guess though, I would think that GD would be among the same category/line as depression.
Personally, I don't really care what they call it. this is just one of those subjects were you would just have to agree to disagree in the end.

it would be pointless to attempt to express the differences between reality and society
to someone who refuses to understand in the first place. 

I guess to them, actions would have to speak louder than an simple explanation.

I'm happy to explain things to people that are willing to listen.

I'm not happy explaining things to people that refute arguments with ideological statements not founded in reality.

A person's being conservative has little to do with this beyond a certain degree of correlation between some flavors of conservatism and a preference for ideology over science.

Is that better?

Quote from: Michelle_P on August 06, 2016, 08:55:16 PM
I'm happy to explain things to people that are willing to listen.

I'm not happy explaining things to people that refute arguments with ideological statements not founded in reality.

A person's being conservative has little to do with this beyond a certain degree of correlation between some flavors of conservatism and a preference for ideology over science.

Is that better?

I'll have to agree with this post. While I am definitely against today's more popular conservative values, I am much more interested in the individual's willingness to accept evidence than what their political leanings are. I have a roommate, for example, who only wants to listen to wacky pseudoscience instead of actual information from scientists. He hasn't caused me any trouble, which is why he's my roommate, but I am not about to attempt to throw science at him because of how worthless that attempt has proven to be in the past. This is a guy who mostly agrees with me politically, which is why I don't like to connect the two.

If someone who disagrees with me wants to fairly assess the evidence with me, then I am absolutely willing to have that conversation. The problem is that most people I know don't want to change their minds on anything once they have settled on an idea. The arguments that leads to often occurs with people we may disagree with, which is what makes that so difficult. This would be true for people I agreed with if there was an actual reason to argue with them.

Quote from: amberwaves on August 06, 2016, 05:55:19 PM

You are failing to see the point I was making, this line argumentation is not constructive.  The vitriol in this thread would likely make anyone who was conservative, religious, or similar extremely frustrated and feel unwelcome.  Many are engaging in the same closed mindedness they decry conservatives of.  All based on subjective beliefs.

I can only speak to my own experiences, from which, yes, I have drawn general conclusions that I now apply. That seems to me to be quite rational. I don't argue with people who are wilfully irrational. If someone else has found that to be a profitable exercise, or they get some kind of kick out of doing it, so be it. If they've managed to convince someone using evidence that transgender people aren't bringing about the end of the world, lurking in toilets waiting to attack people, controlling the weather somehow, etc. etc. then good for them. Oddly enough, those are all things I've yet to hear a 'liberal' spout. But hey, just my experience. 

Quote from: ChiGirl on July 29, 2016, 08:15:11 AM
I find it ironic that the people who use science to argue against trans people are also the people who trash the science on other issues, like climate change.  As long as it fits their agenda.

I usually start with reminding them that the existence of intersex people disproves their idea that people are either men or women and nothing else.  I had one guy deny that intersex people exist.  There's no hope there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting read on global warming. I don't believe science on certain things and I also don't believe a conservitave as much as I don't believe a liberal/democrat.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/

Anytime someone says they're an "expert" I hold their opinions in much less value, doctors and scientists only give educated guesses. I will listen to someone's opinion all day, but at the end of the day it's up to my mind to decide what I want to believe. Either way I'm still for keeping our air clean, planting more trees, and using less gasoline powered vehicles. Personally I take the bus or ride my bicycle everywhere. But we all must remember not everyone is the same. I still hold certain conservitave views on politics as I'm very pro anglo-saxon capitalist as far as economy goes, but I have friends who are conservitave and don't hate on lgbt because they have compassion for everyone. My closest friends always tell me I am a minority within a minority who is a minority but the rarest unicorn that exists lol

Well, that Global Warming article you posted is something I agree with.  However, its conclusion will make conservatives' heads explode.

From the article:

"The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity.

Nor does the fact that it has been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods, enough to submerge most major cities around the world."

Quote from: JeNn_DeViLz on August 06, 2016, 10:49:09 AM

That's so funny! My friends do the same if someone tries to say something rude or hateful. I've given up explaining everything to my immediate family they just will never understand. I buried that rock a long long time ago and moved on. I still will try and explain to people who want to know because to me it's still learning even though they are probably not caring one way or the other. I think this will be less of an issue hopefully in the next decade for us. I still believe we are the last to fully get rights like everyone else in this world. Although from the other side they feel the same way like talking to a brick wall. I always wonder how the founding fathers would view us because men wore makeup and wigs back in the day and I know there had to have been some that were able to pass back then.

Homophobia wasn't a thing until about a century after the founding fathers died, so I doubt they'd perceive us as anything more unusual than Oscar Wilde if he lived during their time. Confirmed bachelors, fops and dandies weren't feared or derided, just dismissed. Also it was pretty common for men to have mancrushes then and even to admit they love their bestie.

Being trans was a lot harder then, but not impossible. Especially because men and women were mostly segregated from each other after childhood. The theatres only had male actors and needed an actor or two to play the female parts. And marriages were usually arranged by the families so the wives and husbands wouldn't always get angry at the other for their indiscretions and idiosyncrasies. To be trans then usually meant they had to disappear and start a new life, and probably wouldn't be able to marry without a family to arrange it, unless they became wealthy somehow (which was more likely during the gold rush). So for FtM, there are a few examples of women living as men, one in particular was a carriage-driver in the late 1800s. I don't know a lot of historical examples on the MtF side tho.


     Hugs,
- Katie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk