what’s next [after the equality act]? racial identity? can someone identify as a minority [for benefits]? i mean we’ve already seen it happen — David Freiheit
🇳🇱
@icedquinn Personally I think we are going about it backwards.. we shouldnt be treating women, or minorities as special groups or give them special treatment (regardless of if they face unique challenges), therefore problem solved, be a minority if you want, who cares.
That isnt that there is no problem or that the problem isnt to be solved. But if we solve the problem for all poor, for example, then by extension we are already helping challenged groups (who are more likely to be poor) as a result.
it's not "men's sports" and "women's sports," they are "sports leagues" and "women's leagues" for the reason of you have potentially 300m citizens in the USA and there are maybe <100 slots to put in the sports league.
the womens leagues are a concession so they can play sports at all.
this is why the whole 'no trans in womens sports' is a big deal.
You wouldnt.. transexuals and transgendered people do not want their own bathrooms or an elimination of sports leagues all together.. They want to be included, not to have other excluded.
I wonder if you realize how pathetic you look when you talk like that.. probably not. You sound like a nut job who is so messed up and miserable all they have left in life is to try to troll random strangers they dont know and hope someone for once will at least acknowledge you...
get a life.
I remember a few people adding some good points and then a bunch of morons who cared more about some religious or obnoxious agenda and prejudice than facts.
I dont remember which one you were, so likely didnt say anything new or remarkable
Also that conversation and post was not about primary sex characteristics, it was about sex, as a whole.
Must be great living in a world that is that simple.. wish it were more than a fantasy, would make my job much easier.
this is a pretty good breakdown of the progressive libtard criteria for intersex. true intersex is actually far less common than progressives claim
https://colinwright.substack.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red
"true intersex"... lol your literally pulling the no true scotsman fallacy right now. I love how you just get to dictate what "true intersex" is and all of science and professionals who life is devoted to this stuff be damned.
Move along your wasting my time.
you should stick to computer science or whatever you're supposedly an expert at. you're talking out your ass as usual
Actually biology is one of the fields I have a degree in, and I worked on the human genome project and other projects in the field (most the genetics side).. though I would not really call myself a biologist either. But I do have more than enough credentials and professional expiernce in the field to understand the topic.
What were your credentials, I dont recall, like i said I dont even remember you saying anything in the past on this topic particularly insightful or meaningful so I dont recall much about your expertise.
I dont care about the letters after your name, I care about what skills you have proven yourself to have. That can be in the form of published scientic articles, peer-review, recognition of accomplishments by professionals, or involvement as a member of a project in the field... credentials are a lot more than some letters.
I am literally asking you "have you accomplished anything in your life to show you have expertise in this topic"... sounds like your answer is no then
Everyone wants to discover something new and unintuitive, so validating someone else's finding is a rare sight, and the confirmation bias is real.
Not to mention that intuition, being a product of millions of years of evolution, isn't often wrong, so when you see a study with some fantastic find that seems too good to be true... it isn't true.
The system isnt perfect and yes there are biases, its fine to be critical and not treat a published study as god and truth... no issues there.. But when you assume all studies are crap, even ones where there is complete consensus, and you do so with no evidence or expeirnce of your own, then your just foolish in the other direction.
As you said, its the best system we have so far, and while anti-science is coming up with nonsense like a 4000 year old earth, and the world being flat science is still right far more often than the alternative.
It really just comes down to understanding where the line is between reality and fringe science that **may** be true but has a lot of unknowns.
there really is a crisis of junk science in academia right now, it's a disaster. this is another famous case- amgen pharmaceuticals attempted to reproduce a large number of drug studies and found that most of them were not reproducible- particulary with cancer drugs, they could only reproduce a pathetic 11%
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/house-of-cards-is-something-wrong-with-the-state-of-science/
we will look back on this pseudoscience of transgenderism as a dark age for science
People seem to forget that china and Russia also had departments full of junk science about Marxist studies. And if you said something that questioned Marxist principles in Russia, you quickly found it very hard to work as an academic, so people learned very fast not to publish inconvenient facts... While others became very prestigious by publishing desirable papers, true or no.
It's exactly the same now in the USA, just not for Marxism.
@meowski @SystemSock @crunklord420 @freemo
one of our main issues to overcome now is the failure to publish negative results. there is an extreme bias against publishing negative results both in the financial world and also in the academic prestige assocaite with a positive result vs a negative result
pharma companies take full advantage of this, they will do a study 10x with small sample sizes and publish the one anomalous result that fits their agenda, while burying the other 9.
there are all sorts of ways of manipulating the data by subsampling and buring what you don't want published
a lot of it is outright fraud. some of it is just the fact that publishing a negative result carries the risk of exposing your own mistakes
but anyway we do have some systemic biases to deal with
And it doesn't have to be sample size, there are plenty of ways to use slight of hand. If you follow current events, you're familiar with the handling of the remarkable Vitamin D results by Nogués et al[1], and the follow-up "debunking" from Brazil, where they used an inactivated form of it to purportedly debunk a result on the activated vitamin D. effectively burying what was one of the most promising and affordable treatments for covid for purposes we can only guess at.
1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3771318#
"removed due to concerns"
like threatening vaccine profits and the global hoax lockdown narrative
no profit in telling people to supplement with vitamin d which is well known to support immune fuction, and many people are deficient in
@fluffy @SystemSock @crunklord420 @freemo
But telling anyone to take vitamins is wrongthink.
@SystemSock @fluffy @freemo @meowski
LOL your wasting your time on these people.. my 24 hour mute just expired and after seeing the load of complete trash and that they havent shut up for 24 hours (apparently even trying to talk to me when i clearly muted them) they just want attention. They are going right back on mute...
You are wasting your time even talking to them, you are a fair bit brighter you could spend that time on better pursuits, actually learning something rather than just getting dumber.
They arent worth your time, let them do their circle jerk, clearly they dont listen to or need anyone else to have their conversations anyway.
Funny, you've literally been tagging me and directly addressing me for 24 hours even when you knew i couldnt see it.. but now all of a sudden your going to act like you havent been swinging on my dick for 24 hours... HAHAHAHA have fun with that, at least someone is acknowledging you exist, must make you feel good... back to mute for you.
come on freemo i'm trying to find one scientific fact or citation you've posted on the actual topic at hand in this thread. can't find anything.
Tenure? Retire in comfort? You really have no clue what I do for a living do you... I am not in academia, LOL, never once said I was... I have volunteered my time to contribute to peer review and published peer-reviewed stuff from time to time, but not funded with or connected with academia in anyway, I do that out of my own self-funded home lab. I am self-funded.
if you're not in academia why are you acting like a slave then!?!? you're telling me this ideology is self imposed and you're not even getting anything out of it? even worse
You really don't have the first clue what I think outside of maybe one or two very narrow topics... you heard a few things that triggered you and then went on a rampage... I doubt you get very far with anyone who doesnt immediately join in on your circle jerks, not far enough along to have any understanding of the person your interacting with anyway.
here you go again. save your energy until you have something interesting to say
Nobody who actually has done science is unaware of how deeply flawed modern scholarship is. That is not to say it is no good at all, mind you. Just that it is as vulnerable to political pressure, nepotism, and fraud as is any other influential group.
It gets interesting when freemo shuts up. Wish people just ignored him at this point
@crunklord420 @SystemSock @fluffy @freemo @icedquinn @meowski
He says as he literally tags me for the 10th time in the same thread.
@icedquinn @meowski @crunklord420 @freekiwi @fluffy @SystemSock
Of course not, there was never a point where I had a conversations with anyone where I was trying to assert a fact.
Literally the only time there was a disagreement in the thread it was a person who jumped in with "retard" and "homo" and immediately set the stage for me have no interest in engaging them. Why would I have have to present data or facts when I havent actually argued any points, the discussions I have have mostly been in agreement or about things neither side had data on so was speculative.
What discussion did I engage in in this thread that even needed data, cant recall one.
I dont particularly care if you call me one, it just means you have no value or worth in a discussion if you do. More your problem than mine.
alright whatever, but there was actually a topic in this thread. you just missed it cause you got defensive
Sure I can do that, only if you promise... you are a nincompoop, a neophyte, and a narcissist. there ya go, you got three.
The truth is you are not in a position to defend it. You do not understand it. You only know that you're not allowed to question it and if you were to make an incorrect interpretation of scripture that's nearly as fatal.
Ok, i mean this basically is why i muted you before, not because of your ideas, uneducated as they may be, but because your a constantly triggered little snowflake who cant stand to even discuss a topic in any useful way and just is constantly triggered spouting whatever nonsense insult you can come up with and hope it pisses off the person enough they will talk to you and acknowledge your meaningless existence... its sad, but its also a waste of my time.
If you had bothered to discuss things in any sort of productive or enjoyable way sure, but its like talking to a nut job schizophrenic in a strait jacket... it goes nowhere, just a bunch of lunatic rantings, and nothing enjoyable or beneficial in any of it. I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt twice now and it lasted for all of 5 minutes, you got muted and then went on and on about me for 24 hours you were so triggered (And still are).. whcih just tells me even this is a waste of my energy.
Normally i dont mute but your so triggered and immature youll just go on forever and waste my time, so ill likely just mute again.
Hey wahtever delusion you wish to live, have fun with that.. ill be busy having actual meaningful conversations.. enjoy your circle jerk.
Sorry I dont speak schizo, I stopped reading like a sentence.. you literally dont even know how to say anything that has even a little value to it. I do kinda feel bad for you, but I also know nothing I can say or do to help.. So you just stay triggered and rant all you want, but your just wasting your time tagging me, I wont waste my time reading schizo triggered bullshit, and if you keep taging and insisting ill just mute you again.
Wouldnt be the first time I missed a topic. I'm ok missing the occasional topic if it means I'm not listening to people making noise and wasting my time thats find by me.
The thing about doing actual science/engineering is that I've got some pretty cool stuff to work onmost of the time. So im more likely to feel i missed out wasting time on some person making noise and saying nothing insightful or useful rather than actually **doing** science. a good conversation with value and some mutual respect (or atleast productivity and meaningful exchange) might be worth a few minutes away from my projects.
All about priorities. I'd rather be doing science than arguing with people with a low SNR (signal to noise ratio).
I'm not sure if your able to engage in a productive way on that discussion, but if you want to try I dont mind giving it a second go (I'm all for giving people or interactions a second chance).
It would be more accurately described as a bimodal continuous distribution with low variance where the male and female points would be at the two modes of the bimodal distribution.
Youll have to be specific about the article, I only recall one off topic one that was limited to only primary sex determination and not sex as a whole. Could have been muted when you shared it though.
As for calling it continuous.. sounds like you are thinking of uniform, a continuous function is not related to a uniform function.
continuous distrubution is just an elaborate way of saying it's not binary, aka the gender spectrum except you're even going so far as calling sex a spectrum. even most progressive don't go this far. it's polarized with birth defects of sex occurring at around .01% frequency so calling this a distribution is a stretch
mammals are not more or less male or female. that's not how sex works. it's either/or. nearly every one of 7 billion people on this planet including you are here because a male and female mated.
Your numbers arent in line at all with those given by medical doctors or experts, personal expiernce or anything else I know.. not even **close** to 0.01% even in the most conservative accepted numbers (which admitidly there is a range since there is no hard line where intersex starts)..
calling intersex a birth defect is fine and all but it really adds nothing to the conversation or to the fact that it is intersexed whether you want to call it a birth defect or not.
your mostly relying on word play by the looks of it to fabricate new numbers you like better.
You are welcome to repost it if youd like.. but even if you happen to have one article that supports a 0.01% intersex figure that would at best make it an exception to the body of literature and wouldnt solve the problem that intersex is not defined as a hard line and thus cant be given any one definitive figure, it just depends on where a particular study decides to define the line for its data nothing more.
Thats the problem with continuous distributions in general.. its like saying "how many water samples were hot".. well each study might defne hot as having a different temperature threshold and thus get different values because "hot" much like "intersex" doesnt have a strictly defined point where that line is being crossed and as such it must be defined on a per-study basis.
but again, share the peer-reviewed study if you wish I dont mind looking.
not sure why it's so difficult for you to scroll up in the thread but here you go: i'm sure you'll come back with another appeal to authority but hey, at least i tried
https://colinwright.substack.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red
I Read it, the issue isnt appeal to authority, the issue is that the hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed studies that disagree with him were done with more rigour, more detail, and make a far more
convincing case.
I already covered this with before reading the article but for starters, as an example, he is focusing on **only** the most fringe value. Intersexed figured published are hardly consistently published at 1.7%, it caries with the metric used for intersex which has to be arbitrary because of the fact that sex is a continuous distribution and not discrete, you set. So right off the bat it goes with the lowest hanging fruit, which really does nothing to progress the argument. Just as there is no temperature that strictly draws the line between hot and not-hot there is no line where we could state something is or isnt intersex. The absurdity with this author is to think that they can even claim "that is not intersex" at al, spectrums dont work that way.
In short he literally assumes his own particular fantasy, contrary to the generally accepted science, is correct, and that sex is discrete, and then argues that backwards to show why intersex figures cant be valid.
The next thing we should do if we are even to consider his opinion at all is look at has this guy actually accomplished anything in the field. We construct these ideas because they are useful in the field, not for schmucks to argue arbitrarily why their prejudices must be true.. So biologists who have actually advanced biology in some way in the past through discovery or the creation of systems that are efficacious to an ends obviously are going to create frameworks (which is what we are really doing here) that are useful to society, people who dont are just hot air.
When reviewing Colin Wrights history he doesn't seem to actually work as a biologist at all.. he spends all his time as an arm-chair biologist.. talking, and trying to sell fringe ideas, usually around some prejudice, and doing nothing to show how they are useful in the field, applying it, or doing any research of any kind. In short, his credentials and accomplishments dont lend him much credibility compared to the existing frameworks scientist who actually apply it to doing science are coming up with. This further shows his unique w2ay of thinking is little more than mental masterbation.
Sorry but giving more credibilityt o someone who has **demonstrated** they can accomplish things over someone who has demonstrated they cant is not just acceptable, its really the only sane approach.
Remember im not assigning credibility because of a degree, or letters on ones names. If someone is the fastest runner in the world im going to take their advice on how to be a good runner over someone who is the one of the slowest, to argue that isnt a good thing is absurd to say the least.
If you literally have proven your good at something then if you say something and someone who isnt good at that same thing says your wrong, you'd be a fool to not listen tot he person good at the subject they are talking about. it would demonstrate a lack of intelligence.
As for critical thinking, I already addressed critically **why** the person was wrong outside of simply never accomplishing a single thing in his field, so your still just trying to trigger people because you want everyone to be as triggered as you are all the time for some reason.
what a gigantic waste of time even attempting to reason with someone like this
>the issue isnt appeal to authority
>literally a giant appeal to authority with zero specific objection raised to the content of the article
you're insufferable. good day
I see your reading comprehension is still pretty poor. the whole thing addresses exactly why he is wrong. Points i mentioned not being appeal to authority:
1) low hanging fruit fallacy
2) McNamara Fallacy
3) Fallacy of the Heap
4) Circular reasoning fallacy
All of which were addressed in my response to his write up and some addressed prior to sharing it (which we covered ad nauseum)...
Only after a mountain of logical fallacies do I rely on his **demonstrated abilities** that is not an appeal to authority, it is subtly but important in the difference. An appeal to authority relies on someone simply being in authority to weigh their argument as superior. In my case I'm using a persons demonstrated success in applying their arguments as the metric for relying on their arguments.
If a surgeon doing surgery argues for a technique and has shown by working in the field the success of that technique and i rely on their arguments more so than someone who has never done surgery a day in their life that isnt an appeal to authority, it is appealing to what has been demonstrably proven, big difference.
Nah its just that doing an apostrophe isnt easy when im typing from my phone or tablet, nor is editing, You can usually tell if im at my computer or not based on if i use apostrophes or the correct version of your.. on my phone i will always use the shortened form and since it is never ambiguous see not need to inconvenience myself on my phone.
I do miss the days of slide out keyboards on phones though.
I actually could rock that shit! android and all!
and with all of the times it's happened... i have never even once seen someone defend him.
Just saw a thread about academia and wanted to bitch about how many problems there are. Frankly, if I had noticed the guy was tagged in I wouldn't have responded. I've never gone away from an interaction with him and felt better for it.
