Grandes fraudes científicos de los siglos XX y XXI
Este podcast va dirigido a todas aquellas personas que buscan la verdad. A través de los episodios estaremos exponiendo, cómo la "mala ciencia" distorsiona la realidad, alejándola de la verdad, afectando todos los aspectos de la vida. Describiremos el origen y las herramientas de esta "mala ciencia" que son principalmente: la politización de las ciencias, la ciencia de los paradigmas y la teoría del consenso en las ciencias. Además, a lo largo de los episodios iremos discutiendo la relación de estas con una serie de anomalías sociales, y cómo afectan los cinco valores que en nuestro concepto son esenciales: las ciencias (como valor o concepto); el pensamiento conservador; el cristianismo y el judaísmo; la familia, y nuestra forma de producción.Como médico epidemiólogo y de salud pública, enfatizaremos en los aspectos de salud, pero también nos estaremos refiriendo a otros aspectos sociales, como los políticos y económicos, en cuanto a que estos son factores condicionantes del bienestar humano. Nuestras intervenciones persiguen destacar el derecho que tenemos los seres humanos a discutir nuestras ideas en un ambiente democrático, donde se de el libre flujo de las ideas, y en donde prevalezca el pensamiento reflexivo e inquisidor que nos permita acercarnos a la verdad. En este proceso de análisis, estaremos abordando las prácticas de salud que contribuyen al bienestar personal y social, como una manera de aplicar en nuestras vidas, la "buena ciencia" o, simplemente, la ciencia. Además, analizaremos aquellas prácticas, comportamientos y decisiones médicas, que aún cuando algunas provengan de instituciones "oficiales", estén revestidas de anomalías que perjudican nuestro bienestar.
Grandes fraudes científicos de los siglos XX y XXI
El sexo y el género, dos caras de la misma moneda.
Este es el episodio No 65 y el séptimo de la tercera temporada de nuestro podcast GRANDES FRAUDES CIENTIFICOS.
La identidad del ser humano como hombre y mujer es una realidad desde la óptica de la verdad revelada por Dios contenida en las Escrituras y desde la óptica de la evidencia biológica. Pero nada de esto es aceptado por los ideólogos de la teoría del género. Estos en su afán de promover su ideología han llegado aún al extremo de pretender anular a la propia biología, a la ciencia.
El ser humano es en esencia una creación sagrada dotado de un componente biológico formado por dos seres, como varón y mujer, por lo que hay solo dos sexos: masculino y femenino.
En este episodio establezco la relación entre el sexo, como componente biológico, y el genero que también es biológico. Explico además por qué el género no es un constructo social.
REFERENCIAS
Bem, Sandra. The lenses of gender: transforming the debate on sexual inequlity. New Haven and London(256 pp); Yale university press: 1993; ISBN 0-300-000/0-1
Soh, Debra; The End of Gender: Degunking the miths about sex and identity in our society; Simon & Schuster, Inc. (New York): 2020; Threshold. ISBN 9781982132538
https://medlineplus.gov/spanish/ency/article/001669.htm
https://isna.org/faq/transgender/
https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/what-is-transgender
Para abordar otros temas relacionados que podrán también ser de mucho interés, los invito a adquirir mi libro: LOS DOS GRANDES FRAUDES CIENTIFICOS DE LOS SIGLOS XX y XXI. Este lo pueden adquirir como libro físico en todas las sucursales de la librería panameña EL HOMBRE DE LA MANCHA. Igualmente, puede ser adquirido como ebook haciendo clic AQUI
Los invito a suscribirse a mi sitio web donde podrán acceder a nuestro podcast y a mucha otra información de interés. Este lo pueden encontrar también en los directorios de Apple podcast; de spotify y todos los mayores directorios de podcasts.
Pueden enviar sus comentarios y observaciones a través de mi sitio web, así como a mi correo electrónico estebanmoralesvk@gmail.com
Presentation and introduction 0:00
Sex is an ontological truth, an absolute and intrinsic truth; it is part of a person's identity. This vision of the human being has been lost to the onslaught of gender ideology:
This is what St. John Paul II referred to in his Encyclical Veritatis Splendor: "Perhaps one of the most striking weaknesses of today's civilization is an inadequate vision of man."
The human being also possesses an anthropology given by God and this truth has also been lost.
St. John Paul II reminds us:
"No anthropology equals the Church's anthropology of the human person, even considered individually."
The human being also has a specific purpose, so sex is male and female. He was made male and female. This vision has also been lost. In this regard, we read in the document Infinite Dignitas:
"This constitutive difference is not only the greatest imaginable, but also the most beautiful and the most powerful: it achieves, in the male-female couple, the most admirable reciprocity and is, therefore, the source of that miracle that never ceases to amaze us, which is the arrival of new human beings into the world."
Finally, regarding gender ideology, the same document reads:
"This ideology presents a society without sex differences, and empties the anthropological foundation of the family."
Hello. Welcome to episode No. 65 and the seventh episode of the third season of our podcast BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS.
I am your host, Dr. Esteban Morales van Kwartel.
Throughout the episodes of this series I have been describing the intrinsic reality of the identity of the human being as man and woman. In the first episodes, I have described it from the point of view of the truth revealed by God contained in the Scriptures that must be sufficient in the environment of believers. In the last two episodes, I have also presented this truth expressed through biological evidence. These should be sufficient in an agnostic environment.
The human being is essentially a sacred creation endowed with a biological component made up of two beings, as male and female, so there are only two sexes: male and female.
But none of this is enough for the ideologues of the genre. In their eagerness to promote their ideology they have even gone to the extreme of trying to annul biology itself, science.
In this episode I establish the relationship between sex, as a biological component, and gender, which is also biological. She also explained why gender is not a social construct.
The lenses of gender. 03:33
Here it is important to return to the thought of psychologist Sandra Bem, who I referred to in the first episode of this series. This is the same one who accepted that her passion had been to challenge this biological link between sex and gender. This time I analyze, as a preamble to my presentation, what is written in her book "THE GENDER LENSES: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality".
This author is one of the main promoters of this gender ideology. She believes that the world is perceived by what is seen through lenses that have been artificially created to see it from three perspectives, each of which go against women: "androcentrism," "gender polarization," and "biological essentialism." This is important to review because they are the ideological justifications for constructing this concept of gender. So I will explain it.
Her book is an expansion of what she had previously called the "theory of gender schemas" that I had explained in the first episode to which I refer you; but I briefly remind you that, according to her, boys learn about the masculine and feminine roles of the culture in which they live; Children adjust their behavior to align with the gender norms of their culture from the earliest stages of social development. Let us remember, however, that all the scientific evidence, previous and current, shows evidence of the fundamental role of various biological factors: gametes, hermones, etc. in the determination of these roles.
Well, in her expansion of her theory of "gender schemas," she adds the lens of "androcentrism" to it. The word means, culture, behaviors, etc., centered on man. Which, according to her, is transferred to the person's mind, from childhood. With this, she explains, the other lens is created, the "polarization", which filters or polarizes this idea of the man as the center, into the minds of the people, thus causing both men and women to unknowingly collaborate in the reproduction of male power.
The existence of the third lens "biological essentialism", created by Bem in her proposal, is what she uses to disqualify biology. This term refers to the view of the human being as possessing a biological essence, in this case, referring mainly to both sexes. Here she claims that this lens works to rationalize the other two lenses by making believe that there is a clear biological reason for all the differences between men and women.
In her expressions, she denounces and disqualifies all Western culture for having emphasized the biological differences between man and woman. She disqualifies science for its support of what she considers the "sexual status quo"; he dismisses the results of the sociobiological studies of his time; In general, she dismisses biology and places culture as the fundamental thing.
But what I consider to be the most serious thing is its frontal attack on the essence and purpose of the human being. After giving her own version of the historical genesis of sexual difference and sexual inequality initiated by the division of labor initiated in hunter-gatherer societies that forced women to have to stay at home because of their husbandry and childcare, she goes on to obscure and reduce the importance of the reproductive function of the human being where sexual difference and the complementarity between Men and women have the fundamental role.
She, and all her lineage of followers, contrary to seeing the function of reproduction as the fundamental purpose of humanity:
"God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, 'Be reproducing and multiplying: fill the earth!'
(Genesis 9:1), sees it as an obstacle, a limitation. In her book she expresses her surprise at the persistence of her concept of inequality between men and women, because, as she says, referring to the great advances in contraception: (I quote) "... in technologically advanced societies women are no longer limited by their fertility."
Bem, perhaps cured in health by the overwhelming advance of biological evidence, opens the doors to the possibility of the future appearance of biological differences between men and women, but she characterizes them as possible "subtle and average" differences.
The inheritance of Dr. Sandra Bem. 09:30
The legacy that Bem has helped to leave to today's society has been devastating. I described it in the first episode as the "seed of evil." Unfortunately, it has germinated fruitfully. What she celebrated as advances in contraception has led to dangerous population reductions in Europe and many other places; even the disappearance of cultures. But even worse, contraception has been compounded by the perversity of abortion, which is not only used as a modern means of contraception but also as a symbol of power over oneself and others; new ways of pretending to be gods.
Modern cultural institutions once seen by Bem and his ideological descendants as enemies, complicit in what they called male dominance, have made them their best allies. The paid workforce, which they bitterly criticized, has become a "captivating siren" that is contributing to the destruction of the family, even fertility, and the care of children, in a new society that wants them to be handed over to the State for training and education. This in the midst of the invented concept of genres and its suffocating diversity.
The author affirms that the existing narrative of psychologists and psychiatrists helped to build that third lens of "gender polarization". According to Bem, this polarization was what has led to considering this concept of gender and its innumerable variants as pathologies. But are these really such? I will talk about this in a future episode.
In this madness of ideological, political manipulation and who knows how many other interests, however, many political and medical institutions have fallen. Among the latter is the Canadian Society of Pediatrics. This is one of those that has adopted the term "sex assigned at birth". This term is nothing more than a political complacency given by timorous and cowardly organizations that fear being canceled. A fear, especially, of the intersex community, and those who identify as transsexuals and others who, according to data obtained by Dr. Soh, a neuroscientist I referred to in the previous episode, represents less than 1% of the population.
The fear of this community, which is within that less than 1%, which has great political power, and with which they want to get along well, is totally wrong and lacking in context because, as I mentioned before, the doctor has a greater than 99% probability of not making a mistake about the sex of the child that is born.
This creates the connotation, sought by the ideologues of the genre, to disqualify sex as a biological fact and transform it into an arbitrary act on the part of the doctor. It is not only a shamefully unscientific action taken by a medical association, but it goes against the figure and dignity of the doctor.
There is no need to redefine "sex" or eliminate the categories of "male" and "female" to facilitate acceptance of people who are different and who represent a low percentage of the population.
But what really are these different sexual behaviors that have been grouped under the connotation of gender differences? We're going to look at this in the next section.
Intersexuals and transgenders. 13:42
Unable to combat sex head-on in their desires for variability, ideologues have appealed to gender; although this is actually a construct on their part. This, however, has a biological and not a social, environmental basis as the ideologues of gender claim, but has a strong link with sex. I'm going to go back to Dr. S. S. S. T Soh to talk about this.
For this discussion, it is first necessary to quickly explain what intersex is. Clinically it is called "differences of sexual development" (DSD). It is a very complex congenital condition because it has many presentations and causes. These birth defects can affect the external and internal genital organs of boys and girls.
In some cases, the genitals are ambiguous, that is, they are not clearly male or female. They can be caused by abnormal levels of sex hormones during fetal development, chromosomal abnormalities, environmental factors, or hereditary factors.
There is a great variability in the ways in which these are presented, depending on the discrepancies between the genotype (genes) and phenotype (how the organs are seen)." Generally speaking, there are 4 different categories. Firstly, that which occurs in people who have a female genotype (XX) (girls); these, although they have a uterus, the external genitalia are male. Second, that which occurs in those who present a male genotype (XY) (boys); here you see female or ambiguous genitalia."
In a fraction of this congenital anomaly is what is known as true hermaphroditism in which a simultaneous presentation of ovaries and testicles and male, female or intermediate external genitalia is observed. There is a final type, known as complex or indeterminate; Here there is no incongruence between genotype and phenotype and there is a hormonal variation or the number of chromosomes. As we can see, this is very complex, but it responds to natural congenital anomalies.
In many of these cases, serious functional damage to their organs or hormonal alterations can occur that can endanger their lives, so they merit surgical or hormonal interventions. Other times you have to wait patiently, under medical observation to see how they evolve. Its management must be carried out by a multidisciplinary medical team.
I wanted to briefly describe this condition in order to make the contrast with another condition called transsexuality or transgender, which is different from the previous one, and to which I will refer immediately and in the next episode and which is rather linked to aspects of "sexual identity", where, without there being visible organic discrepancies, invasive medical interventions are resorted to, which most of the time cause serious damage to mental and/or physical health.
I had already mentioned in previous episodes the huge repertoire of genres that really gets confusing. I will continue to analyze some of these, relating them to two concepts that are also a "construct" of these ideologues: "gender identity" and "gender expression". According to them, the first is how they feel in relation to their sex; that is, if they feel like a man or a woman. Gender expression is the outward manifestation of their gender identity, the way they express their gender through appearance, such as clothing and hairstyle choices and gestures.
There is also the term "gender dysphoria," which is a medical diagnosis that can be established when a person with gender incongruence experiences significant psychological or functional impairment associated with such gender incongruence. This manifests itself as anxiety, depression and irritability.
The definition that ideologues make of the gender of a transgender person is that they feel that their gender identity is more aligned with the opposite sex than with their birth sex, which as I mentioned before, in the jargon of gender ideologues, they call it "sex assigned at birth".
In their attempt to give a semblance of validity to this, they have also invented the term "cisgender" which is used to refer to people who are not transgender and who identify as their birth sex. Finally, and more importantly, this definition incorporates the claim that identity has nothing to do with biology and is merely a social construct.
In the next section the conclusions and farewell
Conclusions and farewell 20:27
As Dr. Soh evidences in her research in her book, like sex, gender, both in terms of identity and expression, is biological. It is not a social construction; According to this, there is a natural congruence between sex and how the person identifies. The biological process that determines sex defines the identification that corresponds to it.
According to their research, biological sex dictates gender in more than 99% of us. To claim that there are no differences between the sexes when looking at the averages of the groups, or that culture has a greater influence than biology, is simply not true. Socialization determines the degree to which our gender is expressed or suppressed, but it does not dictate whether someone will be male or female, or whether they will be gender conforming or atypical.
In the next episode I delve deeper into the issue of gender and its repercussions on our civilization.
In the episode description you can find all the references on today's topic.
I invite you to purchase my book: THE TWO GREAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS OF THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES. Here I describe and analyze in a simple way and with responsible scientific evidence everything related to misrepresentations about the climate. This can be purchased in all branches of the prestigious Panamanian bookstore, EL HOMBRE DE LA MANCHA.
I invite you to access our website estebanmoralesvankwartel.com to which I invite you to subscribe. Here you can also access all the episodes of our podcast and find a lot of other information of interest. Through my website you can also purchase our book THE TWO GREAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS OF THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES.
IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU. I HOPE THAT I HAVE MET THE EXPECTATIONS OF OUR RESPECTED LISTENERS FOR INFORMATION THAT IS HONEST AND USEFUL TO THEIR OWN LIVES, TO THEIR FAMILIES, AND TO THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY OPERATE
See you soon and thank you for honoring us with your attention.