I Honestly Don't Get Transgender

I don’t know if I should, but, since I feel quite a deal of responsibility as an advocate of Science, I’m going to give you a detailed explanation of it and its method, and then of how it applies to each of these topics, step by step. That’s what the “rationality” is called, by the way: science (in this case, empirical science). It’s a strict, demanding, unforgiving system, not unlike, in the discipline, subservience and the humility (towards God/Science) it demands, that of Muslims, or of Middle Age Catholic monks. And the fact is, in the eyes of Science, if you can’t become a model “Muslim”, or a model “monk”, that is, literally a scientist (or someone who has ingrained the basics of the system into the core of his mind and always thinks like this), you can’t even ask questions. Actually, you can’t even speak, or see, or feel the world at all, because you don’t have any senses to perceive it. Of course, that only matters in the world of actual knowledge. You can still speak, state things and ask questions in your day to day life, but, if Science were a Goddess who were to stand watching you during your every moment, the unforgiving queen that she is, she would be throwing everything (99 – 100%) you speak or state or ask directly on the trash can, and just as you finish doing so. Not necessarily because you are under the average of your gullible species, but because that’s all your gullible species can do when it’s left to its own whims – in the world of knowledge, rubbish. And scientific humility is humility before this Goddess, that is Science itself (again, just a didactic model; it’s literally a system you must always, always follow to produce or understand knowledge) – knowing that your thoughts don’t matter, that everything of you is rubbish to her , unless you follow her hard, narrow, difficult system, step by step.

I’m going to explain the methods and the methodology in detail, again, step by step, but not now, since it takes time. Perhaps tomorrow, perhaps during the week. You can ask questions (without any previous assumptions) afterwards to try to better understand how it works. If you want to really dive into it, I can recommend you tons of books, and explain the basics of studying scientific literature. If you don’t actually follow the steps after that, however, I’m not coming back to them, since I’m not being paid, after all! I will just going to point where you are wrong and why, and you will have to look back to get more info, or actually research about it in college level books (that I may recommend you). In other words, it’s going to be technical, but painted in such a way that I, though I’m no professional popularizer of science myself, believe you would be able to understand. O follow all the steps, though, and be sure to have mastered each one before going to the next. It’s how we science students do, as well as professional scientists. You can’t learn how to play the Appassionata if you decide to use but one hand, or if at every step you deviate from the method. Scientific methods do change, but they change slowly, at the very point of vanguard of statistics and methodology. One such example is how Bayesian statistics, with the recent developments of CP Science, is slowly gaining favor over Frequentist inference over many parts of analysis (and some do believe that it may actually take over Frequentism as the dominant paradigm). As you are also going to see, statistical inference is an integral part of both the skeleton and the brain of science, and that some basic analytical logic laws that scientists assimilated do constitute part of that skeleton, but are insufficient in themselves. Again, it must be followed step by step. As we go, I will cover to you the basics of Psychiatry, Sociology and Psychology, that do tend to elude people who do not know how/are not used to think scientifically about people, minds and behavior.

And, by the way, all we scientists decide to become such monks because, as strict as Science is, the reward it gives us is great! We understand how the world actually works better than ever before, all the while manipulating it to develop new technologies to help our species survive, go on and live better.

There at least two (factually wrong) assumptions you have been making in different posts: one of them is that all these (differently categorized) groups of people mentioned present irrational beliefs that do not match reality, and the other is that surgery is self-harm. As you are going to see, all of this is already decided, and it’s neither harm, nor self-, if you are getting the gist of it already. If not, then I hope you are going to, that is, after I explain everything. You are also going to see why these are considered facts in the scientific community.

The final goal is for you, like it is for me and all other scientists (though, for us, there are other goals that go much deeper), to see yourself and all your beliefs and opinions and whatnot you produce and can be organized as information as rubbish (in the world of knowledge). It’s hard on the heart, but it’s necessary. Also part of the goal is to make you able to start clearing your questions of every bias they contain, to make you able to understand and identify different types of definitions, identify and understand operationalization (what definitions actually are in concrete terms and what are their limitations), identify and understand every step of the scientific method, understand how we reach very limited results through test and analysis, and how we actually process large amounts of data by employing metanalysis, which in turn weights on the definitions used, the questions asked, the hypotheses conjectured. Like you can see, there are a lot of steps, and you were not even reaching the first (not an indication you are necessarily under the average). Luckily, you will finish the process with better glasses on how to see the world.

Well, I sound like one of my professors (so cool!). This wide-range organization works very well for us students; I don’t know how it works for the layperson. To some other IMDB members, I’m sure it does not work at all. If you are actually willing to walk down the path of stones and not deviate from it, however, it probably will work at least to a small extent. And yes, it’s going to be far, far heavier than your average IMDB post, but that’s what you actually asked for. I apologize for typos and other grammatical mistakes, since I'm quite sleepy right now. When I have the time, I will quote you, and you will be notified.

And, to everyone else: People, in their daily lives, can be classified as more or less rational about certain topics in certain occasions. They can be classified as such to the degree that their thought proccesses actually mimic the logic of science, or to the degree that they are efficient in informing themselves from actual, reliable scientific sources or, alternatively and concomitantly, to the degree that they are able to assume the scientific humility I speak about in the text and clear their questions of their biases, situating themselves, in their satements, in a more realistic point of knowledge production -- that is, that of the receiver and informal reader. The strict method I alluded to in the text is the model to actually understand things, but people, in their daily lives, do not mirror it perfectly. I don't, my peers don't and my professors and their peers don't either. If we actually want to guess any position at all in an informed way, than we have to try mirroring it as well as we can.