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.
primary sex determination in humans happens at conception. this applies in 99.9% of cases:
the egg has an X
if the sperm has a Y, baby is male
if the sperm has an X baby is female
No one said anything about "primary sex", on the previous post and this one I never once even used the word primary... so not sure what your on about.
i said "primay sex determination"
that's what determines whether you're male or female, which is the thing you libtards cant seem to get through your thick heads
Ok well considering you clearly have no clue what your talking about (and said several incorrect statements already).. and have the maturity of a toddler, I can see why I dont remember you and why you arent worth my attention, bye.
your the only one in the room saying anything worthy of listening to.. you have more credentials than most of the schmucks on this thread.
If you wanted to have that conversation you should have considered it before having the maturity of a 2 year old.
I said good bye, next step is muting you. I wont engage with people who dont engage respectfully, it isnt worth my time. Your complete lack of credentials is secondary to that and would not effect if i wanted to engage you or not usually.
bye, go curl up in a ball and cry yourself to sleep
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
emojis after referencing the cathedral.
Especially in the soft sciences...though if you try to make up shit in STEM they throw you out (though only when it becomes an embarrassment)
True that... mathematics is really the epitome of the cathedral...
It's a cathedral in the "proof left as an exercise for the reader" sense though not in the "anything big boi writes is true".
first they used modernist reasoning of absolute truth and rationality and when that failed they transitioned into the post-modernist idea of nothing matters. whatever irrational idea suits them at the moment.
Ahh right all of science is a big conspiracy and lie.. only the science you made up and pulled our of your ass is the real science.. makes so much sense now...
Yea im muting you now, you have no value to add to any conversation.
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
neurology is interesting and important for the treatment of some mental illnesses and neurological disorders, but i say overall we'd be better off throwing the entirety of psych fields into the trash
psychology and sociology are completely junk fields of science to begin with.
the kinds of experiments you would have to do to actually learn how the human brain works would never pass any ethics board.
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
It's the same old song and dance.
You are implying causality in the wrong direction (post hoc ergo propter hoc). As should be clear from this thread conservatives by their nature think, far more often, science is some big conspiracy and have little trust for it. Naturally these people are far less likely to want to be part of an institution (science/academia) that they hold in discontent. So naturally you will see far less conservatives even applying for academia, let alone have credentials or accomplished anything to make them desirable by those hiring.
It isnt some conspiracy to oust conservative scientists (in fact if you are truly impartial and a scientist then it shouldn't even be possible to tell who is conservative, if your so bias it shows you are probably a shitty scientist in either direction).
I've seen enough resumes from academics to know that someone hiring people the vast majority of the time havent the faintest clue what their political leaning is in the first place.
