🇳🇱
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.
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
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.
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.
that article is pretty interesting though right
"the large majority (88%) of Fausto-Sterling’s 1.7% figure is taken up by one condition: late-onset adrenal hyperplasia (LOCAH). These individuals have completely normal male or female genitalia at birth that align with their sex chromosomes."
it really calls into question the 1-2% number that freemo is so stuck on cause muh doctors keep repeating it so it must be right
what a gigantic waste of time even attempting to reason with someone like this
The core is that freemo is _required_ to hold certain quasi-religious beliefs and is not allowed to think critically on the topic. No discussion of gender identity can be conducted so it must become a demonstration of their refusal to talk about it. Now for their benefit, or to convince them, but to make a show.
sexual development disorders do interest me though. call them intersex or whatever you want, but this sort of stuff is neat when you actually look at the biology
having an open mind about the influence of hormones on behavior and mental illness isn't really conflating. that's just recognizing that hormones do drive behavior to a large extent
snip
I originally write this as "there is no objective criteria for gender dysphoria" but then I realized gender dysphoria is not required for self-identification.
most psychiatric disorders are this way. they just check boxes on a list and that's how you're diagnosed.
i'm not a fan of this sort of medicine or science. if it's not reproducible and can't be tested i have severe doubts about the legitimacy
however i still won't discount some hormonal influence. may or may not be there- i haven't done much research to see if clinical studies have been done on testing hormone activity in self-identified transgenders
that would probably be a thing to look into
There is no criteria for being transgender, there is criteria for having gender dysphoria.
there is an overlap between biomale and biofem but the transwomen were more likely to be in the female-only sector.
however i think it's presumptuous to say hormones are unrelated.
you have to acknowledge there is something severey wrong in the brains of people who literally want to chop their own junk off and take hormones and end up looking like a disgusting troon. that is totally wacko.
so whatever is driving it, idk. it's not normal though
it is, but this is not a scientific or experimental discussion, it is a policy discussion since gender identity as implemented is not scientific.
Great, ill put you back on mute then. Knew it was a mistake to unmute you. But hey, always happy to give someone a second, third or fourth try at making sense...
>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!
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.