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.
"If you believe that there is a replication crisis in academia that leads to legitimate distrust in academic credentialism then you must also believe the Earth is flat"
👍 👍 👍
Not at all what I said.. the replication crisis is mostly limited to sciences where objective measurement is difficult or impossible. Its almost excluslively limited to social sciences and biology. It is a real concern and there is nothing wrong with pointing out the concern. It only becomes absurd when you extend it to all science or presume its an intentional conspiracy. It is to be expected given the nature of the fields of science it is present in and one reason why those fields have had difficulty advancing over the years.
"Not at all what I said..."
"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."
With the obvious implication, of course, being that the people you're arguing with are "anti-science"
The quote agrees with what I said.. at no point did I claim anyone arguing with me is anti-science, that was your apparently paranoid interpritation... anti science is exactly what it sounds like, people who think the whole of the scientific community is flawed and in on some conspiracy to lie and make shit up for money.. disagreeing with me is fine, its the norm, its how progress is made.
If they're not anti-science, then why cast these aspersions at them to begin with? For some kind of social clout with random people on the internet? You obviously thought they were, which is why you brought up the concept in the first place and then refer to people who doubt the legitimacy of the "scientific" community as anti-science (which at this point is a slur for people who don't uncritically support whatever the ruling class tells them).
If they arent anti-science then I'm **not** casting the aspirsions at them, thats the point...
