1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Are you in favour of primary LGBT lessons for young children?

Discussion in 'Education news' started by TES_Rosaline, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    Vince - do you even understand what I wrote? These are things that can be looked up in any Biochemistry textbook. Cell surface receptor theory was proven in the 60s..... If we were wrong then hormone blockers wouldn't work. Nor would insulin for diabetes, nor would half the cancer treatments in use, nor would any drug that binds to a receptor which is almost every drug in use.

    I literally described the Chemistry behind puberty and how it doesn't necessarily always work in the same way every time.

    The most thoroughly researched mutations are probably CYP-19, ER-beta and AR. There's a peer reviewed article here:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402034/

    Which the average person should be able to understand. This research has been repeated many times since, I've just managed to find multiple repeats on PubMed - I'm assuming that if you're debating a scientific topic you know what PubMed is and why the repeats are important.

    If you have any evidence to disprove what we currently teach students regarding the biochemical basis of puberty which is peer-reviewed or is considered so basic that it's in a scientific textbook please share it.
     
  2. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    I can't find it easily myself. Please help me. I'm so out of date, as is every piece of research I can find. Across the entire World.

    I find it ironic that when challenged for evidence by a qualified scientist in this area you suddenly have spring cleaning to do. Yet the second it comes to writing posts regarding your views without them being challenged you have all the time in the World. Convenient?
     
  3. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    what is your response to this @averagedan ?

    This is the result of saying a man can be a woman if they want to be.

    men taking up woman's only spaces in sport, and denying woman the opportunity.

    men in women's changing rooms, denying women their safety and security and choice to be modest.

    men impinging on the identity of girls, and girls losing the equality women have fought and dies for
     
  4. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    sorry, but I don't believe you are unable to find standard mainstream science for yourself, and yes, I am cleaning, but even if I wasn't, I rarely bother to provide links, its just a waste of time, people can look things up for themselves if they want to
     
  5. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Better than you. I am not disputing accepted endocrinology but rather your peculiar idea that any particular aspect of it has been shown to cause transgender people:
    This is false.

    Leaving aside other issues with this study, do you understand the meaning of 'associated' relative to 'shown'?

    This material you present here, on transgender people, is not taught to pupils within the topic of puberty.
     
  6. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    I've made the only comment I intend to on that subject.

    So you don't have any? Yet despite your spring cleaning you can find time to write boring monologues with no evidence.
     
  7. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    Yes it is, it's degree level work and you can take it as a module in most biology related degrees and some psychology degrees.

    You asked for evidence and I gave you peer-reviewed evidence from a top journal. Now it's your turn to provide evidence.
     
  8. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    I don't need to find evidence for mainstream science which you can find for yourself in less than 10 seconds with google.

    When I have mentioned the return of Lamarkism to anybody else, ANYBODY else, scientist, linguist, historian, policeman or what ever, they already either already knew, or found it themselves in a couple of seconds.

    If you are a real scientist, you would have all the information you want about this by now.

    Talk about confirmation bias!!!

    And if I'm boring you don't read me.

    simples!
     
    num3bers likes this.
  9. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    No, this association is not acknowledged science, is not taught in school and if mentioned during a university course is not taught as acknowledged science.

    Again: Leaving aside other issues with this study, do you understand the meaning of 'associated' relative to 'shown'?
     
  10. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    So where's your evidence Vince? Peer-reviewed or so basic that I can find it in a textbook. Please do provide it.
     
  11. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Right here:
    Again: Leaving aside other issues with this study, do you understand the meaning of 'associated' relative to 'shown'?
     
  12. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    I have Googled it and the only stuff I can find is how to disprove Lamarkism…. So, you're a teacher, please educate me. Give me one thing I can look at. Just one that's all I'm asking. Which is either in a scientific textbook or has been peer-reviewed. You're saying it's been disproven, as you've said about many things, so do it.

    I'm willing to bet you have nothing. You've been shown to be an emperor with no clothes.
     
  13. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter


    You saying I'm wrong isn't evidence. Please do give me a peer-reviewed study or I'm going to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. Which is rather likely as you claimed puberty was the answer without realising I had described puberty in terms of its molecular basis. And yes you can study it at university, it's even its own field now with research budgets attached.

    And yes I do understand the term - it's used with all genetic studies as genes encode a likelihood not a certainty hence twins having different phenotypes despite having the same genotype. This is a basic tenet of genetics.
     
  14. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    Literally this has descended into you two saying "You're wrong" with no evidence or reasoning. This is now a well established field of study that's been going for 20 or so years and we have multiple genes which have been identified as probable causes. If the basic science behind these ideas were wrong then every drug we have which acts via a receptor, i.e. almost all of them, wouldn't work.

    And guys unless you actually post some evidence to contradict the current scientific view on the genetic basis for transgender identity I see no more reason to respond.
     
  15. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Then you understand that to say that two things are 'associated' is not to say that a causal relationship has been 'shown'.
     
  16. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    I don't mind explaining that to you if you're willing to learn - different receptors have different binding affinities. So YES there is a mechanism/causal relationship, read the whole report and learn a bit more about how cell receptors effect change within a cell. As always with genetics this is a multigene system with environmental influences, so as I said above " it's used with all genetic studies as genes encode a likelihood not a certainty hence twins having different phenotypes despite having the same genotype. This is a basic tenet of genetics. ". Hope that makes the science a bit clearer!
     
  17. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    This has not been shown to cause transgender people.
     
    num3bers likes this.
  18. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    Then provide the evidence. I've cleared up your misunderstandings over my evidence which has a statistical link, causal hypothesis and mechanism of action. It's peer-reviewed and has been repeated - this is considered to be the definition of "Scientific Proof".

    Now it's your turn to provide counter-evidence, not just "you're wrong". If you can't post any then I will assume you have none which I suspect to be the case as you don't even understand how cell surface receptors work. Have a good day.
     
  19. num3bers

    num3bers Occasional commenter

    Oh dear...... the idealogues have arrived. Have we all got to give our qualifications now? Well, I am not playing the game since what is it here beyond someones word?I prefer to deal in facts and proof and I live in the real world.

    I am going to say the following and nothing more:
    a) As a teacher I have been asked to make statements and teach that a man can become a woman and a woman a man. This is not about tolerance or respect but about ideology driving an agenda which does not accord with fact.

    b) I do not believe that a man can be a woman and vice versa. I do not find any evidence for it. If it were anything other than transgender issues we would be arguing that feelings that do not accord with physical fact and reality are a mental illness. There are still some researchers and clinicians who take this view. ( in the majority in fact even though we have found our views unacceptable and we have had our freedom to make statements severely curtailed within the medical services).

    The same seems to be applying in teaching.

    c) I do not think this has anything to do with respect or tolerance. If that were the case then respect and tolerance would be accorded in equal measure to all opinions. On occasions I am called to teach maths. If I set a question 1 +1 = , I know there is an answer. That answer is 2. If a student gives me an answer of 3, I do not debate it. I simple mark it as wrong and correct it.

    This is not an issue of tolerance or respect. It is one of fact. I do not look down on or judge the student. The answer is not in accordance with fact, it is wrong. Its that simple and that difficult.

    This is the point at which I stop. I am not going to argue with an idealogue who cannot recognise good science and fact from ideology and bad science and entangled ideas and who clearly wants to bait people to ensure that those who do not share their view can be "offensive" and thus reported and banned.

    I suggest everyone thinks carefully now. Its been a good and reasoned debate to this point. Lets all go now and say thanks for the discussion.
     
    vannie and dunnocks like this.
  20. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    You do not seem to understand that it is the person who makes the positive claim who must provide supporting evidence for their claim. So, whenever you are ready.

    You have not provided evidence in support of your claim. The study you posted does not say what you think it says.
     

Share This Page