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]

If you want to send me my transphobe, bigot and racist badge, and claim some sort of higher ground, go ahead.

By the way, what have the LGBTQIA+ done to actually merit a month of celebration and worship every year? It beggars belief that this actually happens.

I have nothing to add.

[Falling Light 101]

.

someone who is trying to combat what they either genuinely believe is misinformation - or what they will be rewarded and GRATIFIED to define and combat as misinformation

in real time, they will feel in that very situation and very moment that they are attempting to suppress misinformation - that time itself is also an obstacle -

in other words in the fight and objection to fight - Misinformation, they feel rushed and hurried, even genuine authentic realistic and truthful goals to stop misinformation is a time consuming operation.

the best Procedure to prevent misinformation is to be informed yourself - then you can propose and demand that a set of truthful and fact - based questions based upon fact that must be addressed and answered. once the questions are answered and accepted by the opposition, then the conversation can be continued as the opposition input from the ones believed to be bringing or bearing misinformation .

for example, the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of scripture from the protestant religion that are the 66 books of the Bible. can the Protestant Christian Believer attempting to combat and stop MISINFORMATION accept the reality that the Bible was not translated into a modern language until the _ " 1400s "--- in other words the only available scriptures for the world to read and understand were ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek and ancient Latin - - for nearly 2000 years - until the late 1400s .

the facts - for example and illustration - - the Roman Catholic influence and military Powers of Government of Rome, Italy, France, Spain, Britian and Germany had decided that a death penalty and criminal offence was to be punishable to all who attempted to translate these scriptures into a modern - real _ time language

this lasted successfully for nearly 2000 years. -

the Bible was not Translated into any modern language outside of Latin alone - until 1582 - nearly 2000 years after Yahashua. Waiting for nearly 2000 years, just to translate an ancient book - this will create a wide range of pre - conceived ideologies and understandings and teachings about the books content that will be impossible to truly universally amend and adjust in the future - especially when the ancient book is based upon a religion and faith.

Not only - waiting for nearly 2000 years, just to translate an ancient book into another language but also simultaneously banning, outlawing, prohibiting and making illegal the translation of the book for nearly 2000 years, under the punishment of the death penalty and severe torture

so,,,, as the example....... I am using as " The Bible " it is simply a matter of going into the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts - seeing the differences between the modern translation systems upon comparing these to the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

but only the honest will ask questions about these differences and take the time to notice that the King James translation is almost an exact duplicate copy - cat of The Roman Catholic Douay Rheims - the K.J.V. translators copied from the Catholic Bible word for word almost exactly in 99 % of the Bible.

should not basic questions be allowed concerning what is in the original Hebrew and Greek - or is the population so Illiterate and everyone completely ignorant that they are unable to determine the major alterations and changes made within the translations - - compared to original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts ? ?

truthful combat against misinformation would be formulating questions in truthfulness to ban malformation

ignoring and quickly banning opposing information while refusing to become knowledgeable concerning these Hebrew and Greek passages that differ form the translations - this consideration - circumstance is not combating misinformation - this is not a ban on misinformation, rather it is a ban against information itself.

one who claims to combat misinformation - should not they know and be prepared to prove - with fact = what they claim. ?

[brunumb]

If you want to send me my transphobe, bigot and racist badge, and claim some sort of higher ground, go ahead.

By the way, what have the LGBTQIA+ done to actually merit a month of celebration and worship every year? It beggars belief that this actually happens.

I have nothing to add.

OK. Support the genuine trans people who suffer from gender dysphoria, but also protect the children from unnecessary lifetime harm.

[historia]

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?

First of all, the author of the Scientific American article is a woman.

But, second, I never said anything about "copying the article's contents into the thread." I said you didn't marshal any of the article's data in support of an argument.

"That's just an interpretation" is not a meaningful rebuttal.

Good thing that wasn't my rebuttal, then. As you will recall, I offered Dawkin's interpretation to counter Sun's interpretation. You objected to that, though, saying "science doesn't work via 'because this guy says so'." But I've simply done what you yourself did, quoting an author giving us their interpretation of the data.

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".

No, it's just an informal way of describing a frequency distribution that is overwhelmingly bimodal. Dawkins characterizes such a distribution as "pretty damn binary," while Sun calls it "anything but binary."

The expression "anything but" means "not at all" or the "opposite" of something. But if you're looking at, say, a color swatch that is 99.98% black, would you say it's not at all black or the opposite of black? Or would you say it's pretty damn black?

In a population of 8 billion, 0.02% is still well over a million people.

But, even among this relatively small group of people, we're mostly (95% of the time) talking about individuals with either (a) XX chromosomes and female sex cells (i.e., female gonads), or (b) XY chromosomes and male sex cells. It's just that, due to rare disorders, these biological females and biological males happened to develop ambiguous or incompletely formed external genitalia while in utero.

There is no third type of sex cell beyond ova and sperm. There is no third sex. There are, as brunumb aptly noted in post #183, just two sexes and an imperfect reproductive process that on very rare occasions can go wrong. That is a rather odd foundation on which to assert sex is a "spectrum."

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.

But, as I noted above, those other variations don't directly address the issue of biological sex. A woman with a larger than average sdnPOA area of the brain or a man with lower than average testosterone (to pick two examples from the article) are still a biological female and a biological male, respectively. Variation in brain physiology and hormone levels may well impact gender expression, but they don't constitute third, fourth, etc., sexes.

(This, by the way, is what I mean by marshaling data from the article in support of an argument, although in this case a critical one.)

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?

I'm arguing that the environment plays a role in all psychological conditions. If that fact alone means a condition can't be termed an affliction, then no mental health problems can ever be called an affliction.

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

But there really is no "maybe" about this fact. And "those folks" constitute 80-90% of people with gender dysphoria, based on nearly 50 years of studies. For the vast majority of adolescents, then, gender dysphoria eventually desists, meaning for them this was never a case of a "suppressed identity."

And here is precisely where the issue of ideology comes into the equation. If young people and their parents and therapists are influenced by an ideology that says gender dysphoria represents a conflict with one's innate gender identity, and that the best way in most cases to resolve that conflict is to put children on a path to irreversible hormone treatments and radical medical procedures, then we're going to end-up permanently scaring a lot of vulnerable children who would have otherwise simply grown out of their dysphoria.

What about the others who don't?

For those small number of people with persistent and acute gender dysphoria, it seems that, barring some better course of treatment, allowing them to transition as adults may well be the best available course of action. Either way, we should afford such people the dignity they deserve, while acknowledging that, especially for biological males who want to present as women, there are limits to their entry into certain women-only spaces.

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.

Links to the three articles I've been repeatedly referencing were provided in post #175. Here is the Reed article again.

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?

Continue the quote:

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.

The idea that Evangelical Christians are the main drivers for us even having this conversation in the first place, as you claimed, is simply untenable.

Consider, for example, as brunumb noted above, that Sweden and other Nordic countries have fairly recently banned giving minors hormone treatments (outside of clinical trials) due to concerns over the large uptick in (again mostly girls) seeking those treatments and concerns over the long-term consequences of such drugs.

Sweden is one of the least religious countries in the world (over 75% identify as atheists) and is famously tolerant. Their concerns over how social contagion and ideology may be at play here have nothing to do with Evangelical Christians. This example also argues against societal attitudes alone explaining the sudden changes in the numbers.

It appears you introduced Evangelical Christians into the conversation as a kind of bogey man, a way to undermine brunumb's and others concerns through a kind of guilt-by-association argument. Or perhaps it just reflects a parochial view of this issue.

Evangelicals don't "share concerns". They have been engaging in coordinated hate, harassment, and oppression campaigns against trans people for some time now.

Of course Evangelical Christians can have concerns about others. To make sweeping, derogatory statements about whole groups of people like this is itself a kind of prejudice.

[Jose Fly]

As you will recall, I offered Dawkin's interpretation to counter Sun's interpretation. You objected to that, though, saying "science doesn't work via 'because this guy says so'." But I've simply done what you yourself did, quoting an author giving us their interpretation of the data.

Well, if you want to go with Dawkins' interpretation that over a million people don't really count, that's up to you.

The expression "anything but" means "not at all" or the "opposite" of something. But if you're looking at, say, a color swatch that is 99.98% black, would you say it's not at all black or the opposite of black? Or would you say it's pretty damn black?

I certainly wouldn't say "It's exclusively black". Would you?

But, even among this relatively small group of people, we're mostly (95% of the time) talking about individuals with either (a) XX chromosomes and female sex cells (i.e., female gonads), or (b) XY chromosomes and male sex cells.

5% of 8 billion is 400 million people. But they don't count in your "interpretation", right?

There is no third type of sex cell beyond ova and sperm. There is no third sex.

The debate isn't about the existence of a third sex, it's about the fact that not all humans fit into the binary categories of "male" or "female". There is quite a bit of gray area between them, as the SA article describes.

There are, as brunumb aptly noted in post #183, just two sexes and an imperfect reproductive process that on very rare occasions can go wrong. That is a rather odd foundation on which to assert sex is a "spectrum."

Huh? The existence of millions of examples of individuals who don't fit into either of the binary categories most definitely means the trait occurs as a spectrum. That's what "on a spectrum" entails!

Variation in brain physiology and hormone levels may well impact gender expression, but they don't constitute third, fourth, etc., sexes.

Again, I'm not arguing for the existence of third or fourth sexes. The point is, sex cannot be a binary trait when there are millions of people who do not fit into either of the two binary categories.

It's not much more complicated than that.

I'm arguing that the environment plays a role in all psychological conditions. If that fact alone means a condition can't be termed an affliction, then nothing can be called an affliction.

So if you had red hair and you lived in a society where red hair was seen as a sign of demonic possession, would you refer to having red hair as an "affliction"?

But there really is no "maybe" about this fact. And "those folks" constitute 80-90% of people with gender dysphoria, based on nearly 50 years of studies.

Citation please.

And here is precisely where the issue of ideology comes into the equation. If young people and their parents and therapists are influenced by an ideology that says gender dysphoria represents a conflict with one's innate gender identity, and that the best way in most cases to resolve that conflict is to put children on a path to irreversible hormone treatments and radical medical procedures, we're going to end-up permanently scaring a lot of vulnerable children who would have otherwise simply grown out of their dysphoria.

How to medically treat people with gender dysphoria is a different topic. As I noted earlier, not being a expert in that subject, I'm content to let the parents, the patient, and the relevant medical community figure out the best course of action.

For those small number of people with persistent and acute gender dysphoria, it seems that, barring some better course of treatment, allowing them to transition as adults may well be the best available course of action.

And that decision should be left to the patient and their doctors, agreed?

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.

First of all, her article is just anecdotes, not actual data. Second, the comorbidities she mentions are things like depression, anxiety, and eating disorders which as we covered before is explained by them living in a society that sees them as inherently flawed, up to and including seeing them as evil pedophiles ("groomers"). It's called "minority stress theory".

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi= ... cou0000339

"We found that genderqueer individuals were harassed, sexually abused, and subjected to traumatic events at higher rates than were either cisgender or binary transgender individuals, with approximately 50% of genderqueer individuals reporting one of these experiences. We found that genderqueer individuals experienced more anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and eating concerns than did binary transgender and cisgender individuals and more social anxiety than did cisgender individuals. Genderqueer individuals more frequently reported self-harm and suicidality than did any other group, with approximately 2/3 of participants’ having contemplated and nearly 50% making a suicide attempt. We extend current theorizing about minority stress (Hendricks & Testa, 2012; Meyer, 2003) to include genderqueer individuals and delineate several structural aspects of genderqueer experiences that may be responsible for these trends, including others’ lack of knowledge about genderqueer experiences and pronouns, poor access to legal and medical resources, and systemic discrimination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)"

Sweden and other nordic countries have fairly recently banned giving minors hormone treatments (outside of clinical trials) due to concerns over the large uptick in (again mostly girls) seeking those treatments and concerns over the long-term consequences of those treatments.

Again, the medical response/treatment of trans people is a separate issue, and one that I seriously doubt anyone here is at all qualified to debate.

Sweden is one of the least religious countries in the world (over 75% identify as atheists) and is famously tolerant. Their concerns about how social contagion and ideology may be at play here have nothing to do with Evangelical Christians. This example also argues against societal attitudes alone explaining the sudden changes in the numbers.

It appears you introduced Evangelical Christians into the conversation as a kind of bogey man, a way to undermine brunumb's and others concerns through a kind of guilt-by-association argument.

Are you actually denying that evangelical Christians have been, and are engaging in coordinated hate and oppression campaigns against trans people?

Of course Evangelical Christians can have concerns about people. To make sweeping, derogatory statements about whole groups like this is itself a kind of bigotry.

LOL...."concerns"? You really think the sort of hateful garbage evangelicals have been engaging in is merely them being "concerned"? Calling trans people pedophiles and "groomers' is just being "concerned"?

[brunumb]

The debate isn't about the existence of a third sex, it's about the fact that not all humans fit into the binary categories of "male" or "female". There is quite a bit of gray area between them, as the SA article describes.

Huh? The existence of millions of examples of individuals who don't fit into either of the binary categories most definitely means the trait occurs as a spectrum. That's what "on a spectrum" entails!

No, there is not "quite a bit of gray area between them". Human sex is binary. The species has propagated for countless millennia on that basis. The fusion of a male sex cell with a female sex cell produces the offspring. There is nothing in between. No spectrum. This is a fallacious construction in order to meet some other agenda. As I said before, reproduction is not a 100% foolproof process. Let's face it, evolution is a consequence of that very fact. People are born with all sorts of conditions as a result of the flaws in the process. Variations in sex chromosomes and improper development of genitalia are a part of that. They are unfortunate physical conditions and do not alter the basic fact that human sexuality is binary. Variations in gender identity are are result of some mental disorder and should be treated on that basis.

In a definitive study of more than 130 boys with gender dysphoria, when they reached their 20s almost 88% had desisted and most of them were simply gay. Given today's rush to transition, those men would now most likely be sterile, physically mutilated people with a horrible future ahead of them. Is that a desirable outcome? One also has to wonder why people who detransition are vilified by the community that espouses so much love and acceptance. The unbridled vehemence, and often violence, demonstrated by trans activists is doing nothing to affirm their tenuous position. I feel myself being pushed further and further away.

[Jose Fly]

No, there is not "quite a bit of gray area between them". Human sex is binary.

Since you've deemed yourself to be such an expert in this area that you feel you can argue via mere bald assertion, let's try this.

What specifically are the two categories of human sex?

What are the specific defining characteristics of each category?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #207]

What specifically are the two categories of human sex?

Male and female.

What are the specific defining characteristics of each category?

23rd pair of chromosomes being XX defines a female, 23rd pair of chromosomes being XY defines a male. Anything else is an unfortunate genetic anomaly (eg. Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome).

[Jose Fly]

What specifically are the two categories of human sex?

Male and female.

What are the specific defining characteristics of each category?

23rd pair of chromosomes being XX defines a female, 23rd pair of chromosomes being XY defines a male.

To be clear, you're saying that one's sex is entirely and strictly determined by chromosomes, correct?

If so, where do people with androgen insensitivity syndrome fit? They have XY chromosomes but are resistant to male hormones and usually have female physical traits.

Anything else is an unfortunate genetic anomaly (eg. Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome).

Thus, by your own criterion, my point about the existence of gray area between "male" and "female" has been validated. Further, if "anything else" exists outside of the binary categories, then the trait cannot be said to be binary and the discussion must move to identifying the most accurate way to depict the situation. Terms like "exclusively binary" are definitely inaccurate.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #209]

To be clear, you're saying that one's sex is entirely and strictly determined by chromosomes, correct?

Absent genetic anomalies, is it not accepted in biology that sex is strictly determined by chromosomes (ie. XX = female, XY = male)? If there are anomalies, then of course it is possible for someone to have intermediate characteristics in the same way trisomy 21 causes Down Syndrome and that person has different characteristics than a person with normal chromosome 21 structure.

According to this, androgen insensitivity syndrome "is caused by genetic defects on the X chromosome", so presumably this would also fall into the category of a genetic anomaly.

Thus, by your own criterion, my point about the existence of gray area between "male" and "female" has been validated.

I'd describe it as requiring the qualifier that the gray area requires a genetic anomaly of some sort. Absent such an anomally, XX is female, XY is male.