Streetlights

joined 1 year ago
[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Imagine if one of those pagers had been on a plane...

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

20 years ago there were complaints that GP's were using Google, now its normal. Can't help but feel the same will happen here.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hey we need the grant money.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

600k by Sunday. Time to head to the liquor store.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

Those are good reasons, true.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Why is he still drawing breath?

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

They are not always so distinct, and your definition of sex=gametes is completely arbitrary semantics that only serves to marginalize people.

It's not my definition of course. And the binary nature of mammalian sex "marginalises" no one. Does the binocular vision of mammals marginalise the blind? Mammals have two kidneys but people born with renal agenesis have one or none, and yet no one is arguing that the mammalian renal system "is a spectrum". Why use such obfuscatory language?

Why not describe human locomotion as a spectrum?

Because that would be factually incorrect at every level. Humans are bipedal. Canis lupis is quadropedal. If you describe both as having "spectral locomotive" properties, you have no language to distinguish between them. It is a ludicrous exercise in semantics that adds nothing to the explanatory power of science and only diminishes it.

The essay is not specifically targeted at scientists.

Of course it is "Biology faces a grave threat from “progressive” politics that are changing the way our work is done, delimiting areas of biology that are taboo and will not be funded by the government or published in scientific journals..."

clearly this is not in reference to random joes, but to career sceintists who decide what is funded or published.

You may be shocked to learn that "non-scientists" also read scientific journals and may also care about proper allocation of research funding. I am not a professional (or amateur even) tennis player yet the governance of the sport is of interest to me and many other "non-tennis" players.

It is not always worth having ideas challenged.

Oh no, it is always worth it. JS Mill makes the case for the vital necessity of dissent in 'on liberty' which is far too long to paste here but should he added to anyone's reading list.

i'm not wasting my time with people arguing in bad faith like this article clearly is.

Then why engage? Why profess your desire to remain ignorant of the text? It adds nothing. Simply hold your peace and move on.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

They contradict themselves in the very same sentence. "nearly every human on earth falls into one of two distinct categories" is just another way of saying "sex is a spectrum

That's not a contradiction because a binary with some exceptions is not, therefore, a spectrum. A spectrum is a continuously varying attribute like height. An individual can move along the height spectrum. There is no continuous variable in mammalian sex; there are only two discrete gametes.

You may as well say humans aren't bipedal because some individuals have one leg or none. But to describe human locomotion as a spectrum would be laughably misleading. And why corrupt the language in this way? Ideology, of course.

deserve to be considered in scientific research.

They are that's why we know about them. Strawman suggesting the authors are implying NOT including them in research.

  1. All behavioral and psychological differences between human males and females are due to socialization.

I very much doubt this is a common statement made by any legitimate scientist.

The essay is not specifically targeted at scientists. They cite examples of blankslate-ism in the media and the idea itself as a theory of mind has been around in philosophy from the likes of John Locke and Descarte.

Good psychologists of course know the effects of evolution and sexual dichotomy on human psychology, but this doesn't always penetrate into society at large.

Given that they opened their article with these two clearly IDEOLOGICAL statements, I see no reason to read any further. The authors need to examine themselves for ideological biases, not accuse everyone else of it.

It's worth a read and it's not terribly long. Always worth to have ideas challenged.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Men harming ex-partners. Unfortunately not uncommon.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Well Rishi I was on the fence but fuck me you've sold me.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Sorry where is the 'neuroscience' in the article?

 

SNP having a great day

 

There is a lot of disinformation flying around about this. The original myth about Cass "dismissing 98% of all data" started because an activist on twitter read the wrong paper.

Question everything, especially if it agrees with you.

 

Seen the "98% of studies were ignored!" one doing the rounds on social media. The editorial in the BMJ put it in much better terms:

"One emerging criticism of the Cass review is that it set the methodological bar too high for research to be included in its analysis and discarded too many studies on the basis of quality. In fact, the reality is different: studies in gender medicine fall woefully short in terms of methodological rigour; the methodological bar for gender medicine studies was set too low, generating research findings that are therefore hard to interpret."

 

Appendix 4 in the Cass Review revealed that 6 out of the 7 adult GDC clinics currently operating in the UK refused to collect or share their patient followup data. If you want better care for struggling LGBT kids, you need the data.

 

The mighty Hitch and one of his great orations. I often wonder what would he think of the world, such as it is, in 2024.

 

We might be living in topsy-turvy world when Murdo Fraser has a point. Honestly, the whole idea of the police keeping "hate" notes on you when you haven't committed a crime is pretty dystopian.

 

If even the Guardian won't get behind your Hate Crime Act, maybe it's worth having a wee think about it?

 

Grouse Moors will need to be licensed? About time.

view more: ‹ prev next ›