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/

[Jose Fly]

I'm agreeing with you, I think.

Thanks for clarifying.

[historia]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/

"Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary"

I'm curious, do you think Richard Dawkins doesn't know the "actual research" then?

[Diogenes]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/

"Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary"

I'm curious, do you think Richard Dawkins doesn't know the "actual research" then?

Good question! I suppose we must remember Dawkins is a specialist, an evolutionary biologist. His answer in the interview is dismissive of 'gender,' a term he and other experts distinguish from sex.

Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society.

https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html
See the Wikipedia article as well; a quick read suggests Dawkins is not so far off.

However, what I found interesting in the article Jose Fly posted is that there may be... probably is a biological basis for gender identification that goes beyond binary. Interesting stuff and much more complicated than I thought... and apparently more complicated than Dawkins may have realized.
Whatever is going on in the field, it's important to be open to new facts, and be willing to change our views/prejudices when new information is discovered.

[Jose Fly]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/

"Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary"

I'm curious, do you think Richard Dawkins doesn't know the "actual research" then?

Given the data described in the SA article, it doesn't look like he does, especially when he says "and that's all there is to it". That's clearly wrong.

[historia]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/

"Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary"

I'm curious, do you think Richard Dawkins doesn't know the "actual research" then?

Given the data described in the SA article, it doesn't look like he does, especially when he says "and that's all there is to it". That's clearly wrong.

But it seems to me the only argument that Sun makes in the Scientific American article that is directly against biological sex being binary is the existence of intersex disorders. Are we to assume that Dawkins isn't aware of such conditions?

In fact, in explaining his views in a recent article, Dawkins notes that these conditions exist but are exceedingly rare, at 0.018% of the population, a figure that is "minuscule when placed in the middle of a frequency distribution, where it is dwarfed by huge peaks on either side." His argument is that "the distribution is overwhelmingly bimodal," which is what he means when he says that biological sex is "pretty damn binary."

One would only use such a term if they saw being trans as a negative...an affliction of sorts.

I can't directly speak to brunumb's choice of words, of course. But we are talking about people suffering from gender dysphoria, a psychological condition for which they are seeking treatment.

When it seems like suddenly there are thousands of trans folk, it's no surprise some think becoming trans is just a fad; some screwball idea that has become popular with a sub culture. As Jose Fly points out, if trans people are just choosing to be trans, they are knowingly choosing a path more difficult and dangerous than necessary.

What it basically boils down to is some people telling trans folks that they are lying, and that they know who they are better than the trans person. If someone can't see the problems with that, then deeper issues are likely at play.

It might be worth noting here that psychological studies since the 1970s have shown that the vast majority of people who experience gender dysphoria eventually grow out of that condition as they become adults.

Moreover, historically, gender dysphoria has been predominantly seen in boys. But in recent years we've seen a big uptick in the number of teenage girls seeking treatment, with the ratios of boys to girls essentially flipping.

I don't think anyone is saying these kids are simply "lying" or that this is just a "fad." But you don't need to be a whistle blower at a transgender clinic to recognize that the sharp increase and shifting demographics of these numbers may be due, in part, to social contagion, especially when they coincide with the rise of social media. And that is where I think concerns about ideology comes into the equation.

[Jose Fly]

But it seems to me the only argument that Sun makes in the Scientific American article that is directly against biological sex being binary is the existence of intersex disorders. Are we to assume that Dawkins isn't aware of such conditions?

In fact, in explaining his views in a recent article, Dawkins notes that these conditions exist but are exceedingly rare, at 0.018% of the population, a figure that is "minuscule when placed in the middle of a frequency distribution, where it is dwarfed by huge peaks on either side." His argument is that "the distribution is overwhelmingly bimodal," which is what he means when he says that biological sex is "pretty damn binary."

I don't know why you're fixated on Dawkins, but science doesn't work via "because this guy says so". The data is what matters, and the data is clear.

I can't directly speak to brunumb's choice of words, of course. But we are talking about people suffering from gender dysphoria, a psychological condition for which they are seeking treatment.

"Condition" and "affliction" are not the same thing.

It might be worth noting here that psychological studies since the 1970s have shown that the vast majority of people who experience gender dysphoria eventually grow out of that condition as they become adults.

Ok.

Moreover, historically, gender dysphoria has been predominantly seen in boys. But in recent years we've seen a big uptick in the number of teenage girls seeking treatment, with the ratios of boys to girls essentially flipping.

Ok.

I don't think anyone is saying these kids are simply "lying" or that this is just a "fad." But you don't need to be a whistle blower at a transgender clinic to recognize that the sharp increase and shifting demographics of these numbers may be due, in part, to social contagion, especially when they coincide with the rise of social media. And that is where I think concerns about ideology comes into the equation.

Or it could be that now that it's more socially acceptable, more people are comfortable coming out.

Overall, this is a very personal and private matter that should be left to individuals, families, and their physicians. The overwhelmingly predominant reason it's become a governmental and societal interest (e.g., you and I discussing it) is because once again we as a country find ourselves having to figure out how to deal with hatred and bigotry from evangelical Christians, who are trying to use the force of government to make everyone else live by their religious rules.

[historia]

In fact, in explaining his views in a recent article, Dawkins notes that these conditions exist but are exceedingly rare, at 0.018% of the population, a figure that is "minuscule when placed in the middle of a frequency distribution, where it is dwarfed by huge peaks on either side." His argument is that "the distribution is overwhelmingly bimodal," which is what he means when he says that biological sex is "pretty damn binary."

I don't know why you're fixated on Dawkins, but science doesn't work via "because this guy says so".

Okay, but your argument in post #162 was essentially just that.

The data is what matters, and the data is clear.

And data also requires interpretation.

Sun and Dawkins reach nearly opposite conclusions from the same data, which is why I cited him.

But we are talking about people suffering from gender dysphoria, a psychological condition for which they are seeking treatment.

"Condition" and "affliction" are not the same thing.

But if a psychological "condition" is causing "persistent pain or distress," isn't that an "affliction"?

I don't think anyone is saying these kids are simply "lying" or that this is just a "fad." But you don't need to be a whistle blower at a transgender clinic to recognize that the sharp increase and shifting demographics of these numbers may be due, in part, to social contagion, especially when they coincide with the rise of social media. And that is where I think concerns about ideology comes into the equation.

Or it could be that now that it's more socially acceptable, more people are comfortable coming out.

While that might explain a general increase in numbers, it doesn't explain the shift in demographics -- especially when teenage girls are known to be more susceptible to social contagion -- or the other issues raised in the Reed article above. So that hypothesis doesn't fully explain the available data.

The overwhelmingly predominant reason it's become a governmental and societal interest (e.g., you and I discussing it) is because once again we as a country find ourselves having to figure out how to deal with hatred and bigotry from evangelical Christians, who are trying to use the force of government to make everyone else live by their religious rules.

Sorry, but this just strikes me as a lazy ad hominem argument. Looking back over the discussion here, the concerns raised by brunumb, Scarcella (the Youtuber he cited) and Dawkins and Reed (two of the authors I cited) don't appear to be coming from any religious convictions. And, as far as I can tell, none of those authors are evangelical Christians -- in fact, quite the opposite!

[Jose Fly]

Okay, but your argument in post #162 was essentially just that.

What in th.....? It was a SA article that summarized the data. I've no idea how you took that as "because person X says so". Utterly bizarre.

And data also requires interpretation.

Says every flat-earther and young earth creationist ever.

Sun and Dawkins reach nearly opposite conclusions from the same data, which is why I cited him.

Dawkins didn't cite any data, he just made an assertion.

But if a psychological "condition" is causing "persistent pain or distress," isn't that an "affliction"?

Again, it's not the "condition" that's causing those things, but rather the society in which the people who have it live.

While that might explain a general increase in numbers, it doesn't explain the shift in demographics -- especially when teenage girls are known to be more susceptible to social contagion -- or the other issues raised in the Reed article above. So that hypothesis doesn't fully explain the available data.

Sure it does, you just have to think about it a bit. If girls are so susceptible to societal pressure and trends, then non-gender conforming girls would suppress their identities while living in a society that oppresses and persecutes such people. As those societal pressures ease and being out becomes more acceptable, more girls will come out.

Sorry, but this just strikes me as a lazy ad hominem argument. Looking back over the discussion here, the concerns raised by brunumb, Scarcella (the Youtuber he cited) and Dawkins and Reed (two of the authors I cited) don't appear to be coming from any religious convictions. And, as far as I can tell, none of those authors are evangelical Christians -- in fact, quite the opposite!

So you're actually denying that US evangelical Christians have been, and are engaging in a campaign of hate and oppression against transgender people? Wow. There's not really much I can do with that level of denialism.

[historia]

Okay, but your argument in post #162 was essentially just that.

What in th.....? It was a SA article that summarized the data. I've no idea how you took that as "because person X says so".

Because you didn't actually marshal any of data from the article to support an argument. Instead you merely quoted Sun's interpretation of the data as if that objectively summarized the evidence. It doesn't. So your argument was essentially just "this person says X," which is only meaningful if you're making an argument from authority.

And data also requires interpretation.

Says every flat-earther and young earth creationist ever.

And every scientist, historian, and scholar ever.

You're just committing an association fallacy here.

Sun and Dawkins reach nearly opposite conclusions from the same data, which is why I cited him.

Dawkins didn't cite any data, he just made an assertion.

No, in the magazine article I cited above, Dawkins himself cites the same basic data as Sun. He interprets the fact that 99.98% of humans are clearly male or female to mean biological sex is essentially binary. Sun treats the 0.018% of humans who have intersex disorders to mean biological sex is "anything but binary."

(Sun spends most of the article addressing matters that don't bear on the question of whether biological sex (as opposed to, say, gender expression) is binary or not, so it's a rather thin argument.)

But if a psychological "condition" is causing "persistent pain or distress," isn't that an "affliction"?

Again, it's not the "condition" that's causing those things, but rather the society in which the people who have it live.

You can say the same thing about, for example, social anxiety disorder. Humans are social creatures who live in environments, so naturally psychological pain and distress arises from a condition within an environment. That doesn't make the condition any less an "affliction."

While that might explain a general increase in numbers, it doesn't explain the shift in demographics -- especially when teenage girls are known to be more susceptible to social contagion -- or the other issues raised in the Reed article above. So that hypothesis doesn't fully explain the available data.

Sure it does, you just have to think about it a bit. If girls are so susceptible to societal pressure and trends, then non-gender conforming girls would suppress their identities while living in a society that oppresses and persecutes such people. As those societal pressures ease and being out becomes more acceptable, more girls will come out.

The fact that the vast majority of adolescents grow out of gender dysphoria by the time they become adults means that they aren't, in fact, "suppressing their identity," since gender dysphoria is not an identity. The Reed article also notes several comorbidities and concerning signs of social contagion among the girls seeking treatment that your hypothesis, by itself, doesn't explain.

Sorry, but this just strikes me as a lazy ad hominem argument. Looking back over the discussion here, the concerns raised by brunumb, Scarcella (the Youtuber he cited) and Dawkins and Reed (two of the authors I cited) don't appear to be coming from any religious convictions. And, as far as I can tell, none of those authors are evangelical Christians -- in fact, quite the opposite!

So you're actually denying that US evangelical Christians have been, and are engaging in a campaign of hate and oppression against transgender people?

Now you're lurching into a non sequitur.

The point I'm making is that the participant here you were previously debating, brunumb, as well as Dawkins and all of the other authors cited above, are not Evangelical Christians. They are, as far as I know, all atheists.

So, simply pointing out that some other group of people that you don't like, such as Evangelical Christians, share a similar concern to these atheists on this particular topic doesn't actually address these atheists' arguments and concerns. Your rebuttal, then, is simply fallacious.

[Jose Fly]

Because you didn't actually marshal any of data from the article to support an argument. Instead you merely quoted Sun's interpretation of the data as if that objectively summarized the evidence. It doesn't.

Wait...if you read the article sufficiently enough to determine that his interpretation wasn't objective, why are you complaining that I didn't copy its contents into the thread?

And if you think his summarization of the data is off, then specify where and how.

So your argument was essentially just "this person says X," which is only meaningful if you're making an argument from authority.

Nope, never said nor implied that at all. Folks can read the article if they wish, and if they want to discuss it further, we can do so.

You're just committing an association fallacy here.

"That's just an interpretation" is not a meaningful rebuttal. It's nothing more than a wave of the hand dismissal. Again, if you think he's incorrect then go ahead and explain.

No, in the magazine article I cited above, Dawkins himself cites the same basic data as Sun. He interprets the fact that 99.98% of humans are clearly male or female to mean biological sex is essentially binary.

That's a self-contradicting statement. "Essentially binary" is like "kind of pregnant". In a population of 8 billion, 0.02% is still well over a million people. That many cases that don't fit the either-or framework means trying to characterize the trait as binary is incorrect.

Sun treats the 0.018% of humans who have intersex disorders to mean biological sex is "anything but binary."

And that's correct. Further, that's merely the number born intersex. As he points out in his article, there are all sorts of other variations that further add to the diversity that falls outside the binary either-or framework.

You can say the same thing about, for example, social anxiety disorder. Humans are social creatures who live in environments, so naturally psychological pain and distress arises from a condition within an environment. That doesn't make the condition any less an "affliction."

So are you actually arguing that whether a society is accepting of something has no bearing on the mental health of people with that something, who live in the society?

The fact that the vast majority of adolescents grow out of gender dysphoria by the time they become adults means that they aren't, in fact, "suppressing their identity," since gender dysphoria is not an identity.

For those folks, maybe so (or it could be that many of them suppress their identity due to social pressure). What about the others who don't?

The Reed article also notes several comorbidities and concerning signs of social contagion among the girls seeking treatment that your hypothesis, by itself, doesn't explain.

Link please.

The point I'm making is that the participant here you were previously debating, brunumb, as well as Dawkins and all of the other authors cited above, are not Evangelical Christians. They are, as far as I know, all atheists.

So? That's only relevant if I'd said only evangelical Christians have been engaging in coordinated hate campaigns against trans people.

So, simply pointing out that some other group of people that you don't like, such as Evangelical Christians, share a similar concern to these atheists on this particular topic doesn't actually address these atheists' arguments and concerns. Your rebuttal, then, is simply fallacious.

LOL...no. Evangelicals don't "share concerns". They have been engaging in coordinated hate, harassment, and oppression campaigns against trans people for some time now. But then, white evangelicals have always done that to groups of "others", be they Quakers, Catholics, Native Americans, blacks, Jews, gays, Muslims, Latino immigrants....trans people are merely their latest target.