Who here is being anti-science? 𝘝𝘌𝘙𝘕𝘈𝘓 𝘝𝘐𝘕𝘈𝘐𝘎𝘙𝘌𝘛𝘛𝘌 main post is talking about a real problem in academia, that academia has openly recognized and is trying to solve. For example in my own field, statistics, there has been quite a bit of talk about the use of hypothesis tests, and p-values and how a general lack of understanding of the nuisances and complexities of these sort of statistics has contributed to the bigger issue of reproducibility and other issues in academia.
While my posts are not supposed to be anti-science, they are pointing out the limitations of science. Such as forcing people to accept one redefinition of a commonly used word over another. I have never claimed that transmen or transwoman don't exist, or that they are some how 'lesser,' they aren't. They are human beings deserving of both respect, and the same equality of opportunity as the rest of us. Nor have I claimed your use of the word 'gender' is irrational. I am merely pointing out that science does not have a monopoly on all forms of knowledge, and that the science you are portraying does not really have the consensus as you have portrayed it.
Really this forum post has been a debate that is supporting your version of what appears to be empiricism(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism), and mine which is a form of pragmatic skepticism (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism) and rationalism (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism). Both views are valid, and these sort of epistemic debates go back at least as far as Socrates and Aristotle. But writing off our side as anti-science without even trying to address the beliefs is just dogmatic, lazy, and inaccurate.
Edited 6/7/2019 18:39:02