Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[brunumb]

Like I said, I don't read the propaganda.

Ironically, you may be seen as a victim of propaganda. The article poses questions which challenge transgender ideologists to actually make sense of their position. I can understand why you would not want to read it and that is precisely what the activists are hoping to achieve. Doing so may expose you to those questions, and your inability to answer them induce some cognitive dissonance. A little extract:

Is there a gender binary or not? Somehow, it both does and does not exist, according to transgender activists. If the categories of “man” and “woman” are objective enough that people can identify as, and be, men and women, how can gender also be a spectrum, where people can identify as, and be, both, or neither, or somewhere in between?

What does it even mean to have an internal sense of gender? What does gender feel like? What meaning can we give to the concept of sex or gender—and thus what internal “sense” can we have of gender—apart from having a body of a particular sex?

Here is the insanity. It is now considered “counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

Don't read the article, but I wonder what happened to being open-minded.

[Diogenes]

Like I said, I don't read the propaganda.

Ironically, you may be seen as a victim of propaganda. The article poses questions which challenge transgender ideologists to actually make sense of their position. I can understand why you would not want to read it and that is precisely what the activists are hoping to achieve. Doing so may expose you to those questions, and your inability to answer them induce some cognitive dissonance. A little extract:

Is there a gender binary or not? Somehow, it both does and does not exist, according to transgender activists. If the categories of “man” and “woman” are objective enough that people can identify as, and be, men and women, how can gender also be a spectrum, where people can identify as, and be, both, or neither, or somewhere in between?

What does it even mean to have an internal sense of gender? What does gender feel like? What meaning can we give to the concept of sex or gender—and thus what internal “sense” can we have of gender—apart from having a body of a particular sex?

Here is the insanity. It is now considered “counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

Don't read the article, but I wonder what happened to being open-minded.

I agree the article should be read, particularly by those who are biased against what it says. I read it. Anderson asks good questions. As a political/policy movement the questions he raises`should be addressed. Most if not all of his questions and complaints are answered by the science discussed in the Scientific American article. I doubt Anderson read it or anything that counters his Heritage biases. The SA article, and others, should be read completely, especially by those who may think the 'transgender community' is making it all up, that it's just in their fuzzy little heads; that it's a passing fad.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/

I haven't read all these, but reading is more important than bloviating:

'Transsexuality among twins: Identity concordance, transition, rearing, and orientation
A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality
Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus
A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity
Changing your sex changes your brain: influence of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure
Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism
White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormone treatment: A diffusion tensor imaging study
The (CA)n polymorphism of ERβ gene is associated with FtM Transsexualism
Should transvestic fetishism be classified in DSM 5? Recommendations from the WPATH consensus process for revision of the diagnosis of transvestic fetishism

We also encourage you to explore additional resources on this topic:

For a SITN blog article discussing sex determination, check out “I’m XY and I Know It”: Sex determination systems 101
For a quantitative view of transgenderism in the US, take a look at this analysis from Times Union
For a review of discrimination against transgender persons, see this report from the National Center for Transgender Equality
For a more complete discussion on queer acronyms, see this description from BBC news
For an in-depth look at how disagreements over restroom usage has shaped policy, check out this Politico article'

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016 ... -identity/

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #330]

Like I said, I don't read the propaganda. Find a scholarly article.

It was an opinion piece, like most of what you're arguing is based on. But many of the points are valid. And as I said ... I posted it as it summarizes my own opinion, not to claim it was a science article. If you want scholarly articles instead of opinion pieces, it is easy enough to go find them yourself.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #329]

Anderson's article is heavy on logic and philosophy, light on science.

Yes ... it was an opinion piece and not a science article. Some of the participants here are extrapolating far beyond what is said to claim that opposition to presenting trans, LGBTQ, etc. ideas to kids as young as 5 is the same as being a pious homophobe demanding that everyone who is not a heterosexual male or female should be eradicated or put back into the closet. This is the common response I've encountered ... ignore the focus on arguments against exposing kids and instead scream homophobia in general from the strawman built to make their own point.

It is similar to the response to the Florida "Parental Rights in Education" bill that prevents classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade (ie. 4-8 year olds), and prohibits instruction that is not age-appropriate for students. The LGBTQ lobby immediately called it the "don't say gay" bill and lost their collective marbles, outraged that this stuff can't be part of school instruction to 4 - 8 year old kids (and, as usual in these cases, using it as an excuse/trigger to loudly vocalize their agenda and claim discrimination). The fact that they went so crazy over this indicates that they are just fine with exposing 4 - 8 year old kids in general ... not just dealing with individual kids who may exhibit gender dysphoria or other issues who can be managed as needed as individuals.

I have no problem with adult trans, LGBTQ, etc. people existing and being happy and living under the same laws as everyone else, and in the U.S. anyway they do have the same rights, protections, priviledges, etc. as everone else under the law. I just don't think it is OK to try and convince little kids of certain lifestyles and ideas before they are developed enough to understand any of it.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #334]
Thanks! You make several excellent points, particularly about the age at which children get sex education; also implicit in your post[s] is a pet peeve of mine and something that is a national issue: the evaluation of facts according to one's biases rather than even an attempt to be objective. It seems ever more common for people to see things strictly thru a conservative, liberal, R or D, religious or non, male or female or trans or whatever POV. Science is hardly everything, but it is the best way (so far) of getting to reliable facts.

Simply sticking with our biases puts us at the same disadvantage as those who think their "gods'" imaginary dictates define reality...
... makes us no better off than Sam Clemens' proverbial "man who does not read."

The core issue concerns pubescent children and adults and we should not be afraid to examine the science that may support genuine, biological, unalterable gender differences. I say this as someone who has, for as long as my memory serves, identifies as straight, male, and on the far end of the gender continuum. ... and also as one who has some resentment about feeling forced to modify 'male' with 'cis;' not to mention feeling pressure to use 'them' as a singular pronoun. Language changes [sigh] and it does me no good to rail against those changes . . . tho' I will never get over words like "unique" getting misused so much they now mean "rare" instead of strictly "one of a kind." [sigh]

[boatsnguitars]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12322060/

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #336]

I get only an abstract from the posted link, and no further links to the full article, so not clear if it is a peer-reviewed science paper or some kind of study report. In any case, it appears focused on general sex education for adolescents (defined as onset of puberty through teen years typically), which seems perfectly fine. This is when the physical changes occur which enable sexual function and of course adolescents should be educated on the subject as they transition into this part of their lives.

The referenced study seems to conclude that better (and possibly more explicit) sex education should be available in the U.S., along with contraceptives, to teenagers to reduce teen pregnancy rates compared to those in Europe. There is no mention of trans, LGBTQ, etc. topics being included in this more explicit sex education, or a suggestion that more explicit sex education should be given to prepubescent children (the focus of my posts in this thread).

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #336]

I get only an abstract from the posted link, and no further links to the full article, so not clear if it is a peer-reviewed science paper or some kind of study report. In any case, it appears focused on general sex education for adolescents (defined as onset of puberty through teen years typically), which seems perfectly fine. This is when the physical changes occur which enable sexual function and of course adolescents should be educated on the subject as they transition into this part of their lives.

The referenced study seems to conclude that better (and possibly more explicit) sex education should be available in the U.S., along with contraceptives, to teenagers to reduce teen pregnancy rates compared to those in Europe. There is no mention of trans, LGBTQ, etc. topics being included in this more explicit sex education, or a suggestion that more explicit sex education should be given to prepubescent children (the focus of my posts in this thread).

I was on my phone so didn't want to write a lot. I was adding to this comment from diogenes:

Thanks! You make several excellent points, particularly about the age at which children get sex education; also implicit in your post[s] is a pet peeve of mine and something that is a national issue: the evaluation of facts according to one's biases rather than even an attempt to be objective.

I saw "sex education" and it reminded me of the lower rates of unwanted pregnancies and STDs in the Netherlands rather than America. In fact, come to think about it, a Dutch friend in High School had porn mag pages taped to his bedroom wall, and his Mom didn't seem to care - something that was shocking to me.

I suspect the backlash against LGBTQ+ is related to America's Puritan values, and not science.

[Daedalus X]

Let's look at all the chemicals we are exposed to and come up with a simple, succinct answer that explains away all the things we are angry about.

I just find it absurd to think that you can single out one chemical to explain why people are gay - as if people weren't gay before pesticides...

I doubt that the problem would ever come down to just one chemical. And if increase in LGBT+ were the only side effect of a chemical that allows greater food yields, would that be a price worth paying?

Plus, what's wrong with being gay?

That is a good question and worthy of it's own topic.

I will just say how I look at it. I had a coworker friend who was blessed with a Down syndrome child. At first he was devastated, but over the years he grew to love his son because of how happy and loving the child was. And he said he would never want his son to be any different. Him and his wife even tried and succeeded in having another child knowing that the chance of having another Down syndrome child was high. They got a healthy girl.

I see LGBTQ+ in a similar way, it is not a tragedy but if it can be avoided we should avoid it.

[boatsnguitars]

Let's look at all the chemicals we are exposed to and come up with a simple, succinct answer that explains away all the things we are angry about.

I just find it absurd to think that you can single out one chemical to explain why people are gay - as if people weren't gay before pesticides...

I doubt that the problem would ever come down to just one chemical. And if increase in LGBT+ were the only side effect of a chemical that allows greater food yields, would that be a price worth paying?

Plus, what's wrong with being gay?

That is a good question and worthy of it's own topic.

I will just say how I look at it. I had a coworker friend who was blessed with a Down syndrome child. At first he was devastated, but over the years he grew to love his son because of how happy and loving the child was. And he said he would never want his son to be any different. Him and his wife even tried and succeeded in having another child knowing that the chance of having another Down syndrome child was high. They got a healthy girl.

I see LGBTQ+ in a similar way, it is not a tragedy but if it can be avoided we should avoid it.

I find your understanding of LGBTQ+ people to be tragically ignorant and bigoted. There is a substantial difference between someone with clear mental deficiencies that will impact their ability to care for themselves, and LGBTQ+. But, I suppose it's progress. At least you are admitting it's not a choice, as the Right Wing used to claim.

Also, I think the ridiculous think about this "we are becoming feminized" is so subjective. Was David Lee Roth "feminine"? (or any of those 70-80s hair bands)? They were the epitome of a man at one point: Women wanted them, men wanted to be them.
If not, that, then look at the long history of men in powdered wigs, etc. But, I guess some people think Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Ray Comfort are "real men" - or for some reason - some men think that John Wayne, or Connor McGregor, or Ray Lewis are the epitome of being a man. They think warring, violence, muscles, anger, controlling women, lack of artistic talent, lack of education,etc. is what it means to be a "real man".

In reality, those men are toxic and the reason we keep going to war. If anything, we should be celebrating being more feminized. After all, what's wrong with women that we wouldn't want to share some of their qualities?

The world would be substantially better with more LGBTQ+ people and fewer toxic men, ignorant bigots, and rapey priests.