^This.

Well then, that just proves...

Hey, that's actually a pretty intelligent and well-thought out response.

While I'm not sure I agree with your last paragraph, I do agree I lack the medical experience and knowledge to make a proper decision. Unfortunately, while most experts are indeed properly trained and qualified, the most vocal among them tend to be those that espouse stupidity - which for most of the media means shonky left-wing activist types who want to trans-gender-morph children, while on the right it's the hard-core Christian types who will have an equally valid "study" showing that homosexuality leads to pedophilia or something.

So the "experts" most people see tend to be those that they either agree fully with already, or that they will always be completely against - which leads people to doubt the experts, which in turn leads people to doubt logic and science, which will surely and inevitably end in civilisation entering a new dark age, when the rabble come to burn down telescopes and clinics.

Yes that might sound melodramatic and all that - but people seem to be getting stupider as time goes on, with the people being elevated to the tops of their field being more into politics than their actual area of supposed "expertise". Sure this was always the case to a point, but in the past people elevated (and in the media) tended to have at least SOME capability in their field - now capability seems to not only not matter any more, but actually seems to be a hindrance: sensationalism (and the stupidity that comes with it) seems to be the goal these days.

The movie "Idiocracy" is getting closer to reality every day.

So, it means that you are a young, angry homo activist promoting free sex?
Figures.
This is even below SJW - homonazi at his best.

IDK about that one, just sounds like anti-intellectualism unless I misunderstand you. People agree with the treatment of trans people by prescribing hormones because that's what the evidence supports. So called christian science tends not to be anything more than ultra biased dribble if I go off my experiences with their debunking of evolution.

Could you tell more about that experience of yours? Because I've never seen christians who debunked evolution. And I've met some very-very zealous christians in my life.

I have run into a few Christians who do and have seen publications are the net that are attributed to Christian groups but, there actually good reason. Anyone who has studied paleontology can tell you that the paleontologic record, ie, observations, do not agree with the theory of evolution. Evolution calls for continuous slow change while the fossil record shows steady state with short bursts of change. Still, most scientists (myself included) believe that at some point, the two will explain one another even if studies since at least the 1970s have not been able to do so. I'd have to feel that Muslims don't tend to believe in the theory either as they are in general more fundamentalist in nature then Christians.

Actually, it's hard to say. Initially Islam was very favorable to science. In fact, before the Crusades Muslim scholars were far superior to Christians. Incompatability of science and relition is greatly exaggerated, so fundamentalism doen't neccessarrily means anti-science.

In the USA a few years back, there was a well-publicised movement to start teaching "intelligent design" alongside "evolution", as if it were some kind of scientific alternative.

By "intelligent design", they actually meant this as in "people were designed by God, evolution is a myth". These were a dangerous combination of zealot and total utter moron combined. It was baffling that they were actually taken seriously (albeit by a small minority, but that was enough for debates to be put forward in some US states to enact laws to make this happen. If I'm not totally mistaken (and I hope I am), there may have even been a state or two in the US South that actually accepted this point of view, albeit temporarily before it was overturned).

It's possible that this news didn't reach your country at the time - it definitely did the rounds out in the West at the time, providing some good comedy material.

In case it's not obvious from the above, I completely agree with this point. While there are capable scientists that are Christians, "Christian Science" tends to be biased at the very least, and more of than not hilariously stupid.

Well that's my point: stupidity by experts leads to people trusting them less and less, which eventually leads to wholesale anti-intellectualism. Which is something we must avoid at all cost, lest we descend into mobs of observatory-destroying retards.

That's actually my problem with this claim. Science is a system of knowledge and views that is universally accepted in society (or at least majority of society). If you say "Christian science" I expect that to be something that majority of Christians agree on, not some fringe group whose views were accepted by two US states tops at some point.

Compare this with an idea of gender being "social construct" unrelated to biological sex. Not only this idea is accepted for the majority of the US and UK, but it is also actually implemented (at least partially) in schools and prisons with students being called men and women simply on the basis of self identification. I would say that such ideas can be called "Social Justice Science" as they have more wide acceptance than "intelligent design", despite being equally crazy.

That is a very good point, and I agree that this bizarre gender debate has gone too far (especially when they make up extra genders, which is just ludicrous). It also has parallels with that "Christian Science" in that it's defended "religiously" by SJW zealots.

That isn't to say I have anything against people choosing to switch their gender when their adults - IMO they should be able to do that if they want to. However, I definitely draw the line at stupidity such as acknowledging "gender neutrality" (which IMO is only valid if they have no genitals at all), or the idea of unisex toilets (especially in schools), and definitely don't agree that children have the mental maturity to be able to "choose their gender".

I'm not sure that it's accepted in the "majority" of the US and UK that gender is a "social construct" - at least not quite yet? I could be wrong since I don't live there and haven't visited any of those countries in many years. It does seem like there is a concerted attempt at making that a reality - but again, that could be a perception based on the media (social media sites such as Reddit do make it seem like this is now how it is, but I suspect that could be due to the bias of the people using those sites) - somehow I doubt that it's THAT widespread (with the exception of San Francisco and possibly parts of London - at least not yet).

In Australia there's definitely a push in the direction of "social construct gender identities", to the point that this is now accepted in quite a few work places, and last time I went to renew my driver's license, under gender the choices were "male", "female", and "other". So we've already headed down the path.

However, as far as I am aware, one's passport is still required to indicate one's actual "gender", at least insofar as can be proven physically (so trans people who have made the transition completely may identify as the gender they now are, as far as I am aware). I don't see that changing any time soon.

EDIT: Crap, just went to renew my passport, and yeah I was wrong: https://www.passports.gov.au/passports-explained/how-apply/eligibility-citizenship-and-identity/sex-and-gender-diverse-passport. Although it does specify that you'll have issues overseas if you're "gender diverse", which shouldn't be surprising.

It's interesting that in Heinlein's "A Stranger in a Strange Land", a wacky religion that all were making fun of throughout the book turned out to be correct in the end. :) As far as the "Intelligent Design", it was attributed to Christian fundamentalists (correctly) but was also taken up by many other groups - it doesn't mention God, Allah, Wodin, or any other - it would have not met legal requirements if it had - so some thought of a master engineer, space alien, or whatever as to be the designer of the universe. It was never science but was based on the belief that the world was too intricate to have happened by chance.

This is just my opinion but I do not believe that the majority of Americans go against science in the gender debate. The media, university professors, etc are very vocal about it but polls show it to be about 60/40. Twenty years ago it probably would have been more like 98/2 so it has changed a lot. Really, as long as it isn't taught as science, I see no harm in adults wishing to play the role of another gender as long as they don't insist others become part of the fantacy. I don't see the harm in governments allowing them to choose on passports, etc either.

But that's exactly what is happening. "Transgender people" already demand everyone to call them by their chosen pronoun and you can get in trouble for failing to comply. There were already several cases with school teachers.

Also, US and UK already have "gender studies" as a school/institute subject, that represents ideology of "social justice". Though I don't know if transgenderism is included in the curriculum.

I know; that's why people are so upset - it is indeed being rammed down our throats. I was speaking as I believe it should be.

They have had gender studies courses for at least a couple of decades now. I remember there were people taking women's studies in university 20 years ago. Of course back then it was just a throwaway degree and a waste of money, something to be ignored, I'm not sure when postmodernism infiltrated it and mutated it into the dangerous beast it is today. Now a lot of them claim things like 'needing evidence is oppressive' and 'science is racist'.