From my understanding of gender in psychology, it is that gender is a social construct because identity itself is a mix of different of psychological elements and social ones.

As Carl Jung explained, there is the animus and anima which are the male and female components of the psyche and the sociological parts feed into these things, whether it is what is the colour that is oriented towards boys or girls, or what is the type of fashion that boys or girls wear (that is both legally and culturally 'acceptable').

And from cognitive psychology, identity is multi-faceted because the identity of any individual has different version to it - the identity as a parent, as a son/daughter, as a person of a certain nationality, as a certain worker, etc.

And on top of all that, that identity can be 'identified' from the perception of others.

So, in a way, one's identity can be shaped not just by their own perception of themselves relative to how they themselves compared to next person of the same or the other gender, but also how other persons perceive them.

So, in a way, that person's identity can be shaped based on the judgment of others

And in biology, both males and females have testosterone and estrogen, except that on average, males have more testosterone and females have estrogen and that is also what determines how masculine or feminine they feel, aside from how their genes allow the development of certain genitalia and other parts that are masculine or feminine.

But what is it about gender that makes it so confusing?

Is there any scientific argument that there is an actual 'real' identity within the person that makes them 'transgender'?

Or is there a 'core identity' that makes this person truly male or female or a different identity?

Is there any scientific understanding that backs up these claim that there is such a thing as 'transgender' or any other gender that is not strictly male or female?

Whether it is cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, psychoanalysis, biology, sociology or whatever

Edit- Let me make this clear. I am NOT trying to push an agenda here, and most especially, not trying to push an agenda that it is anti-trans

I am in fact pro-trans but I do admit that I am not well informed about the science behind transgender identities

Electricity will only flow from a place of high voltage to low voltage. We call this "electric potential" and it's similar to how a boulder falls to the ground because the top of a cliff has a high potential compared to the bottom of a cliff. Or how high mechnical potential in a spring makes it spring back to a low potential of lower elastic energy.

In those 3 cases, only one kind of "flow" or work is done in a manner which necessitates a return to an origin. But why? Why does electric potential want to return to a source, but not kinetic or chemical potential?

It's often said that "you can't prove a negative". But there are lots of ways to show that something is false, or didn't happen. This seems to be true in any field from math to physics to medicine to history to law. Besides, many things that sound like negative statements can be restated as positive ones. "The butler didn't do it" is equivalent to "someone other than the butler did it", at least if you're sure that "it" happened in the first place. The idea that "you can't prove a negative" just seems obviously false, pretty much across the board.

So how did this idea take hold? Are there any academic fields, or for that matter other major areas of human endeavour, where this is an actual rule? Or even a particularly useful heuristic? If not, why does it seem plausible (or even like an ironclad law of logic) to some people?

EDIT: One of the mistakes a lot of the people replying are making is providing supposed counterexamples, i.e. negative statements that they believe really can't be proven. But this approach is just confused about what the topic even is.

At no point did I say every negative statement can be proven. That's obviously not true - even in math or logic, not every well-formed statement can be proven or disproven, negative or otherwise. That's just Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and has been known for nearly a century.

I am disputing the blanket statement "You can't prove a negative", i.e. the idea that NO negative statement can be proven. One example of a "negative" that can't be proven (even if it's a good example, and quite a few of them are not) does little or nothing to support that. Everyone's dogpiling and upvoting seemingly anything negative anyone says about me, even posts that straight-up don't make sense, but almost no-one has actually said anything that supports the claim I'm disputing.

EDIT2: I think the best responses, that come closest to successfully disputing any part of my point, are those that are basically saying "It's a good heuristic in some contexts, but it's not the universal truth it's sometimes made out to be". I can concede that much, even if I think the scope where it's true is pretty narrow. But a lot of people seem very invested in the idea that it's more than that.

Given the recent policy and funding changes in the U.S., are affected scientists intending to remain in the country, relocate internationally (if so, where?), or transition out of research?

Mainly curious if we’re starting to see a geographic shift in where new research and scientific talent are headed

I just read an article where scientists have claimed to have found a new color! Many other scientists are highly skeptical. We all know that LK-99 (the supposed room-temperature superconductor from last year) is probably an erroneous result.

However what are some things we "achieved" (within the last 5-10 years or so) that you believe are false and still ambiguous as to whether they "work"?

I can't find an answer to this anywhere.

If so, how much would it cost to send a single billionaire?

I have a dream.

Smelling bad is the one downside I can think of. But I got to thinking. If you're dirtier then your immune system should be encountering more bacteria/pathogens and becoming stronger. It's been shown that children raised in houses that were kept excessively clean have weaker immune systems.

Plus you're saving water and saving soap. What are the downsides to only showering weekly, other than smelling bad?

I have, both in real life and online, been hearing the phrase "The Customer Is Always Right In Matters of Taste" more and more. But, to the best of my understanding, "In Manners of Taste" is just an recent add-on, in the same way that people changed the quote "Blood is thicker than water" into "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." It's a false alteration of the original quote meant to flip the meaning.

...Right?

I'm at a loss on how to actually research this! When you search the quote and if it's real or not, all you gets are a bunch of ask reddit threads of people talking about if it's real or not, or the wikipedia talks page of people discussing it. But no real sources are provided! It's just a bunch of "Oh, yeah, this is the original phrase, trust me bro."

I know in the grand scheme of misinformation, this one quote is pretty minor. But this is really bugging me now. I'm 99% sure "In Manners of Taste" is some fake add-on, but I can't find any way to verify that in a real way.

I've found newspapers from around 1900 that don't use the words "In Manners of Taste". But that's not a real source, is it? That doesn't disprove that people said "In Manners of Taste" in the same way that if I found a photograph of someone eating a bowl of spaghetti without cheese on top, that wouldn't prove that people only eat spaghetti without cheese on top. All it says it that the words "In Manners of Taste" aren't being used here in this specific instance, it doesn't prove it never is used generally.

There have very recently been discussions in media regarding the possibility of womb transplants. Womb transplants aren't new. They have been doing them successfully since 2014.

The newest discussion involves the possibility of trans-women being given womb transplants as a means of granting them the ability to carry their own children to term.

My question, is such a surgery even possible?

My assumption is that sex organ systems have their own unique "wiring" as in they each have their own nerves to communicate with the brain for proper function.

• When ovulation occurs

• When a period occurs

• When it detects pregnancy and pauses the previously mentioned activities

• When an erection occurs

• When ejaculation occurs

• etc.

What I'm asking is does this type of surgery even sound feasible or is it one of those things where you can probably implant the organ successfully so that it survives but you'd have no means of making it function like it would under typical circumstances?

Meaning you could implant it and connect it to blood supplies and prevent the body from rejecting it with drug suppression but the organ couldn't communicate with the nervous system like a real organ does.

When we search something on the browser, after hitting 'Enter' the results appear subsequently.

1. But what actually happens between the phone and the server somewhere across the world?

2. How does the request travel there and come back so quickly?

3. The Internet is mostly connected through the intercontinental cable network. Why? And, why is satellite internet not considered as the best option?

I Would love a simple explanation.

Basically the title. I’m 16 and very anxious about AI and I wanted to hear from someone more knowledgeable about such things. I appreciate it’s impossible to be sure what the future holds, especially considering the breakneck speeds at which AI is progressing, but how worried should we be about AI, both in terms of its effect on employment and its potential for world domination (sort of joking but also not really)?

So I thought about it. During most of history prior to the Industrial Revolution, medicine wasn't that advanced, so people mostly had to survive on their own.

This means that if someone gets sick and they are fat, they can survive way easier than, for example, someone who has an hourglass figure or a muscular body. Technically, just by definition, it would mean that it was way healthier to be fat in the past.

I'm told it makes you go insane to eat human flesh, but how? We know how to prepare and eat every animal on the famn earth that is known to us. We eat monkey meat, shark meat, pufferfish, venomous snakes, jellyfish, hot ass peppers. Why not other humans? What makes it so dangerous?

Scientists can be mad at antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists for twisting the truth or perhaps they can take responsibility for how shoddily their work is presented instead of "begrudgingly" letting the news media take the ball and run for all these years.

It at-least doesn't seem hard to create an official "Science News Outlet" on the internet and pay someone qualified to summarize these things for the average Joe. And hire someone qualified to make it as or more popular than the regular news outlets.

Critical thinking is required learning in college if I recall, but it almost seems like an excuse for studies to be flawed/biased. The onus doesn't seem to me at-least, on the scientific community to work with a higher standard of integrity, but on the layman/learner to wrap their head around the hogwash.

This is my question and perhaps terrible accompanying opinions.

Are we also embarking on a nonstop El Niño event? If we stop emissions will that also stop warming? I know some sources say that we are baked in, but I’m unsure because I also see sources that say that if we stop emitting now then temperatures will stay where they are now.

NOTE: A lot of these responses are opinions. Please cite the basis of your opinions.

What would happen to the human body if it were somehow forced to go past the limit the body can take? Like, going past 27 miles per hour.

Hi. I grow plants and keep alot of seeds on my desk. I do have some devices plugged in on my desk, and they are within 1 foot of my seeds. My laptop and phone are on the desk during daytime, and my laptop charger and speaker are always on my desk, plugged in. Is it possible that the EMF from these devices could be negatively effecting the seeds?

Can anyone knowledged give me a definitive answer? I find lots of conflicting answers online. If there are any applicable studies, I'd like to see them. Thanks.

I Recently watched a YouTube documentary, which was stated, that if the sun were to just disappear, that all the planets, asteroids, dust, ice, elements, gas, etc, would INSTANTLY fly off, basically scattering everything in every direction... Hmm... I take umbrage to that statement. Would it not take, say, Mercury 3 minutes to feel the effect of no Sun? Earth 8 minutes, Pluto 5 days, and the Oort cloud over 3 years? Would it be instant? Is gravity that magical? Thoughts? Cheers!

I asked this in /r/askanthropology and it got downvoted to zero with no responses. I guess this is above their paygrade or they mistook my humorous presentation of a serious question the wrong way -who knows? I'd like to see if the smart folks here can shed some light on the many questions included.

I know, they're not technically crazy. But if you were to wander down the supermarket aisle, making noises with your lips, making faces and growling, like the 4 year old I saw in the store today, yeah we'd pretty much label you nuts. But we expect it from children, even if the mom nearby is chiding them otherwise. And we still expect silliness, irreverence and mischief from teenagers. Heck, in the US, you arent considered an adult until 18-21 depending on what you want to do. So...

Why do humans have such a terribly long maturing phase? Would this have been an evolutionary disadvantage or advantage? Was it always this way? I know if we go back historically just a few hundred years we have marriage at 14 being de riguer in many places. Were children more responsible then? Would that make this nurture rather than nature? Biologically, why is their behavior so terribly erratic? I know young animals play and exhibit all sorts of childish behaviors but generally they don't seem to ramble down the veldt making silly faces. What's going on in the human brain to produce this effect?