There's only two genders.

Incorrect. As I pointed out: planet. Virus went through many iterations. So did bacteria and even cells. So, yes, we refine what we learn. We also refine the words we use to give knowledge meaning. Science is not stagnant. It's not about holding onto firm beliefs like a zealot.



Yes. Progress. Progress is a good thing. It's why we don't use leeches to cure illnesses anymore. It's why homosexuality is no longer a crime. It's why women can vote and have jobs. It's why black people are no longer slaves. Cultural influence.



That's not true either. Homosexuality was seen as a choice for decades, if not centuries, in the scientific community. Far longer than the social sciences have existed.



The true problem is believing the biological scientists have more prestige than the social scientists. This of course discards the hard work social scientists do and the years they've put into their line of work.

It's not about gender disappearing. It's about them understanding more. Knowing that gender is a cultural construct.

Not true. Planet had its definition refined by the scientific community. There was a fountain of media coverage about it. Don't see how you could've missed it. Virus itself has gone through several definitions as scientists debated whether it is or isn't a living organism. 

Just like with those two examples, gender itself is being refined due to more nuanced understanding of it, not just due to some political agenda. 


Incorrect to link eugenics as a mere social science. As it had full-on biological applications. And horrific ones at that. Nor is eugenics the same as feminist theory. Try that one again yourself.



Not at all. No, we did not believe that about dogs, but we did not equate humans with dogs either. When dogs did it, they were just dumb animals; hence why homosexuality in humans was seen as a choice. Even by scientists. We have the cognitive ability to make those choices about our sexuality, as they believed. Biologists did not recognize homosexuality as nature. Particularly, since a lot of them did have those same old religious beliefs. It was not just the social scientists who saw it as wrong. Many biologists did as well, seeing as how it did not have anything to do with reproduction. 


Incorrect again to believe social scientists are not scientists. They're not zealots either. 

Claiming biologists are waving bye-bye to is the equivalent of saying they waved bye-bye to the belief that white people are superior to black people just to placate the political climate. The biologists are learning just as the social scientists are. One science is not cut off from another. Science does not exist in a vacuum. 


Once again, incorrect. As scientists agree, gender is cultural. It has not encroached on sex, which is biological. Don't worry. It's not coming to take it away. It's helping to refine it. As science is wont to do.

That's spurious to say the least. Firstly, those words maintained their meaning even when new evidence arrived and secondly, the new evidence was not pushed by a political agenda. What evidence of the third, fourth, or fifth genders have we acquired that would warrant such a push?



Huh? What utter nonsense. Eugenics had no basis in biology whatsoever (that was kind of the point). It was an attempt at a social understanding of scientific biology. In other words, you take a fixed science then you add your political outlook to it until you get the conclusion you want. You know, like the ludicrous phantom genders that you people want.



Again, you're missing the point (either wilfully or because it offends your political ideology) The point is that biological science accepted and understood homosexuality to be a naturally occurring phenomena (that was the extent to their scientific knowledge). It was the social sciences (eagerly lead by religionists) that pushed for an ethical interpretation of that knowledge. No-one doubts that scientists can be strong-armed into agreeing with a social agenda (that AGAIN is the point I've been making about the gender issue).



Where did I say they were? I said that the zealots (who very often influence the social scientists) own the word now.



This is more gibberish. Of course they're waving bye-bye to it. We've established that gender is a cultural construct, have we not? Why would biologists give a fuck about cultural constructs? They're biologists.



Um no, not incorrect (I do not think that word means what you think it means). It is entirely correct that social sciences should never encroach on real science. That's how you end up with idiotic nonsense like Eugenics and 72 genders.

Still waiting to see your evidence for even a third gender. Maybe you can spot them by a combination of the shape of their head and their ethnicity. Maybe a big nose indicates gender 43?

Oooo, lying now. The last refuge of the incompetent!

^^^ Dumb enough to think that "bye" means "going forever!"

No wonder you piss your pants and run whenever anybody asks you to prove your claims