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]

Absent genetic anomalies, is it not accepted in biology that sex is strictly determined by chromosomes (ie. XX = female, XY = male)?

We don't work that way in biology. For example, when I used to be the lead biologist for a species of fish, we didn't say "the species spawns between May 15 and June 1, except for the ones that don't". Instead, we usually said "the majority of spawning occurs between May 15 and June 1", which clearly implies that not all spawning occurs within that window.

Also, remember my question was "what are the specific defining characteristics of each category", and your reply only listed chromosomes. So that's what we're going by for the purposes of this discussion. If you wish to amend your answer, feel free.

If there are anomalies, then of course it is possible for someone to have intermediate characteristics

Which is precisely the "gray area" I mentioned.

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.

And outside the strictly binary framework.

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.

That's typically what a "gray area" constitutes....anomalies from the majority. So with the fish example I gave, fish that spawn after June 1 are "anomalous" and are part of the "gray area" that doesn't fit the "spawns between May 15 and June 1" category.

Absent such an anomally, XX is female, XY is male.

Well duh....that's no different than saying "Absent the fish that spawn before May 15 or after June 1, the fish spawn between May 15 and June 1".

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #211]

That's typically what a "gray area" constitutes....anomalies from the majority. So with the fish example I gave, fish that spawn after June 1 are "anomalous" and are part of the "gray area" that doesn't fit the "spawns between May 15 and June 1" category.

I went back to page 19 in this thread and don't see anywhere where anyone is disputing the fact that a small number of humans are born with anomalies in their sex chromosomes. I've certainly not argued against this observable fact, so not sure what the point of your last post was making an analogy to fish spawning periods. My point was simply that absent a genetic anomaly, human sex is binary. Are you arguing that even without a genetic anomaly, human sex is not binary?

Trans people, gay people, etc. are a completely different subject. Many (presumably most) such people have perfectly normal 23rd chromosome genetics (ie. either XX or XY) but choose to "identify" as the opposite sex, or prefer sex with another person of their same sex. This is nothing to do with their sex chromosomes and all to do with their mental decisions and personal choices. Entirely different discussion.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #211]

That's typically what a "gray area" constitutes....anomalies from the majority. So with the fish example I gave, fish that spawn after June 1 are "anomalous" and are part of the "gray area" that doesn't fit the "spawns between May 15 and June 1" category.

I went back to page 19 in this thread and don't see anywhere where anyone is disputing the fact that a small number of humans are born with anomalies in their sex chromosomes. I've certainly not argued against this observable fact, so not sure what the point of your last post was making an analogy to fish spawning periods. My point was simply that absent a genetic anomaly, human sex is binary. Are you arguing that even without a genetic anomaly, human sex is not binary?

Trans people, gay people, etc. are a completely different subject. Many (presumably most) such people have perfectly normal 23rd chromosome genetics (ie. either XX or XY) but choose to "identify" as the opposite sex, or prefer sex with another person of their same sex. This is nothing to do with their sex chromosomes and all to do with their mental decisions and personal choices. Entirely different discussion.

The impetus for this discussion/debate is the claim from some that human sex is binary, and their objection to the claim that that there are "gray areas" between the two binary categories (male and female). As I noted earlier, the existence of "anomalies" or "outliers" to the binary categories clearly indicates that human sex is indeed much more complex than a simple binary framework and gray areas between male-female do exist.

With that reality established, the discussion/debate then becomes merely about which words most accurately describe the situation. The claims "human sex is binary" and "there are no gray areas" are simply wrong.

[historia]

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.

5% of 8 billion is 400 million people.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I said, "among this relatively small group of people" -- that is, among the 0.018% of people with intersex disorders -- we're mostly talking about individuals with internal sex organs that line-up with their genetic sex, and thus would fit within the typical definitions of male or female, as their bodies are oriented toward (if not always successful at achieving) the production of small or large gametes, respectively. They just have malformed external genitalia.

I'm not arguing for the existence of third or fourth sexes.

How many sexes are there, then? If the answer is two, then sex is (at least in some sense) binary!

What we're all hashing out here is just how neatly every last person on the planet fits into those two categories. For 99.98% of the population, there is no ambiguity. The remainder have very rare developmental disorders that, to varying degrees, make it more difficult for us to determine their sex. But, since we all agree these conditions don't result in a third, fourth, or fifth sex, we're not talking about normally occurring variants here, but rather exceedingly rare abnormalities.

With that reality established, the discussion/debate then becomes merely about which words most accurately describe the situation.

Well put. Since we all agree that there are only two sexes, it seems to me that describing sex as a normally occurring "spectrum" or describing sex as "anything but" (i.e., not at all) "binary" would be deeply misleading, especially when traits that don't directly bear on the question of biological sex are dubiously used to buttress such assertions.

For my money, Dawkin's characterization of sex as "pretty damn binary" seems as good a description as any. I'll leave it at that, and turn to the more interesting part of our discussion.

[historia]

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.

Citation please.

Again, links to all of the sources I've been referencing in my replies were provided back in post #175.

Across the various studies I'm referencing here, published over the past 50 years, on average 80% of the participants saw their gender dysphoria desist by adulthood.

The largest of those studies, already referenced by brunumb in post #206, is also described in this article by Devita Singh, et al., "A Follow-Up Study of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder," in Frontiers in Psychiatry vol. 12 (2021), where 87% of the participants saw their gender dysphoria desist.

Which brings us back to concerns about what happens when we short-circuit that process:

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.

It seems to me what we're talking about here -- broadly -- is how a particular ideology is influencing people.

It seems very much on topic, then, to discuss how this so-called 'gender ideology' may be impacting the way an increasing number of adolescents self-diagnose their mental health problems. It's equally on topic to talk about how this ideology may be impacting the way some therapists and medical professionals are treating those children. It's also on topic to talk about how this ideology may be impacting the way some institutions are treating the entrance of biological males into previously women-only spaces.

These are all issues of public concern, and so worthy of public debate.

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.

Sure, that's true of all whistle-blower accounts. But her observations are consistent with, for example, the systematic review of evidence that the Swedish medical board undertook to inform their recent decision to stop hormone treatments and surgeries for gender dysphoric minors (see this English summary).

The board noted the shifting demographics of those seeking treatment, the prevalence of comorbidities, and the increasing number of detransitioners as raising serious concerns about the causes of this recent, sharp uptick in adolescents seeking treatment for gender dysphoria.

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".

Reed also mentions comorbidities like autism, which simply cannot be explained by societal attitudes, and the fact that groups of girls who know each other are coming to the clinics, some of whom are claiming to also have ticks, Tourette's, and other conditions they obviously don't have, which are clear signs of social contagion.

Moreover, Sweden and the other Nordic countries present an obvious counter example to your totalizing explanation that societal attitudes can somehow account for all the data here:

Like many other countries, Sweden has seen a sharp rise in cases of gender dysphoria, a condition where a person may experience distress as a result of a mismatch between their biological sex and the gender they identify as.

. . .

The trend is particularly visible among 13- to 17-year-olds born female, with an increase of 1,500 percent since 2008.

"It used to be a male phenomenon and now there is a strong female over-representation," psychiatrist Mikael Landen, chief physician at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg, told AFP.

Landen, who contributed to the scientific study on which the Board of Health based its decision, said the reasons for this increase remain largely a "mystery".

"Tolerance has been high in Sweden for at least the last 25 years, so you can't say it has changed," he said when asked if it was simply a result of a more accepting society.

Sweden has been highly tolerant of transgender people for a long time, and yet:

(a) saw the same sharp increase and shift in demographics among those seeking treatment for gender dysphoria as in other countries, indicating that this increase can't be explained solely by a society becoming more accepting, and

(b) many of these Swedish adolescents with gender dysphoria have similar comorbidities to those in other countries, indicating these other co-occurring mental health conditions can't be explained solely by a society with pernicious attitudes towards transgender people.

It seems to me you're rushing to these (actually somewhat conflicting) societal explanations too quickly, especially when medical boards in an increasingly number of countries in Europe (and now also in the United States) simply don't find that hypothesis sufficient to explain the data.

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

LOL...."concerns"? You really think the sort of hateful garbage evangelicals have been engaging in is merely them being "concerned"?

Here is what I think about these specific comments: You are, ironically enough, engaged in a bit of black-and-white thinking here. You are describing an entire group of people, Evangelical Christians, as if they can only be either "hateful" or "concerned."

I have no doubt that some Evangelical Christians -- just like some people in other communities -- come to this issue from a place of fear or bigotry. I also have no doubt that some Evangelical Christians come to this issue out of a concern for vulnerable women and children. So, of course, Evangelical Christians can have concerns about people, as I said. To suggest otherwise is simply prejudiced.

[brunumb]

It seems very much on topic, then, to discuss how this so-called 'gender ideology' may be impacting the way an increasing number of adolescents self-diagnose their mental health problems.

I put this down to social media platforms like TikTok. Everyone is suddenly an expert and their so-called lived experiences are absorbed by lazy individuals not prepared to do any research but prefer to be spoon-fed their knowledge in short, colorful clips. The same misinformation and lies get propagated and reinforced, while any attempt to present contrary information is shut down. The review of practices in Scandinavia and England you referred to are good examples. A journalist here wrote an article presenting just the information but was shut down through the interference of trans activists and lost her job. Legislation regarding alleged hate speech and misinformation on social media is being proposed and it is clearly designed to only allow government sanctioned opinions. Free speech is under threat under the guise of what appears on the surface to be desirable management of the media.

When established facts like the binary nature of sex in humans (any mammals really when one thinks about it) is challenged by uneducated graduates of TikTik U, we are in serious trouble. Genuine scientists are being coerced into silence or reluctant submission through the threat of losing their jobs and facing an uncertain future. The facts surrounding the negative impacts of chemical and surgical interventions to treat gender dysphoria are trickling through and will hopefully do something to avert a dismal future for so many innocent young people.

[oldbadger]

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.

You obviously have intimate knowledge of all this........ Given that XY eggs become males, is there any biological reason for human males to be so different from each other........ some develop in to larger humans, some become less strong, some more intelligent, ......... some become asexual of course, now why would a male developed from the xy chromosome have so little interest in reproduction?

[brunumb]

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.

You obviously have intimate knowledge of all this........ Given that XY eggs become males, is there any biological reason for human males to be so different from each other........ some develop in to larger humans, some become less strong, some more intelligent, ......... some become asexual of course, now why would a male developed from the xy chromosome have so little interest in reproduction?

Human cells contain 23 chromosome pairs. One of them can be XX which determines that the person is female. The other can be XY which determines that the person is male. Genes, which are sections of all the chromosomes, together determine the characteristics of the individual person. It's not just the sex chromosomes.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #217]

You obviously have intimate knowledge of all this........ Given that XY eggs become males, is there any biological reason for human males to be so different from each other........ some develop in to larger humans, some become less strong, some more intelligent, ......... some become asexual of course, now why would a male developed from the xy chromosome have so little interest in reproduction?

The egg itself is not XX or XY. Sperm are either X or Y, while eggs are only X (females have no Y chromosome so neither do their eggs). If an X sperm fertilizes an egg, the result is a female (XX) while if a Y sperm fertilizes the egg you have a male (XY). It is only the 23rd pair of chromosomes that determine sex in this basic way (ie. being XX or XY), but as Brunumb points out there are 22 other pairs of chromosomes that each contain many genes (and our nuclear DNA in general) that determine the many characteristics and differences between humans. And of course as humans develop their brains form opinions, beliefs, likes and dislikes, etc. that vary widely among humans and result in some being gay, some being bisexual, some being prone to criminal activy, drug abuse, or becoming religious (or not), etc. etc. The variation allowed by genetic diversity and the human brain is tremendous.

[Jose Fly]

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I said, "among this relatively small group of people" -- that is, among the 0.018% of people with intersex disorders -- we're mostly talking about individuals with internal sex organs that line-up with their genetic sex, and thus would fit within the typical definitions of male or female, as their bodies are oriented toward (if not always successful at achieving) the production of small or large gametes, respectively. They just have malformed external genitalia.

First of all, you've introduced new criteria for determining sex. Earlier in the thread, sex was said to be determined merely by chromosomes, with XX = female and XY = male. But now you're bringing in external genitalia and gamete production, which if we include those as defining characteristics introduces even more variability that doesn't fit the "entirely binary with no gray areas" framework.

Second, again you're only including intersex individuals when in reality there are other people with additional variations that don't fit the strict binary framework (see the SA article).

How many sexes are there, then? If the answer is two, then sex is (at least in some sense) binary!

I am disputing the claim that all human sex fits into a strictly binary framework with no gray areas. That is demonstrably false.

What we're all hashing out here is just how neatly every last person on the planet fits into those two categories. For 99.98% of the population, there is no ambiguity. The remainder have very rare developmental disorders that, to varying degrees, make it more difficult for us to determine their sex. But, since we all agree these conditions don't result in a third, fourth, or fifth sex, we're not talking about normally occurring variants here, but rather exceedingly rare abnormalities.

Again, don't make the mistake of thinking that intersex people are the only type of variation that doesn't fit the strict binary framework.

Also, a group of people that exist in relatively small numbers (still numbering over a million)....actually exist and shouldn't be waved away as insignificant or anything like that.

Well put. Since we all agree that there are only two sexes, it seems to me that describing sex as a normally occurring "spectrum" or describing sex as "anything but" (i.e., not at all) "binary" would be deeply misleading, especially when traits that don't directly bear on the question of biological sex are dubiously used to buttress such assertions.

If there are millions of individuals that don't fit the strict binary framework and constitute a gray area between the two categories, plus if there are additional folks with other variations in sex traits, then it's entirely accurate to say that human sex exists on a spectrum rather than in a strictly binary framework. I mean....that's exactly what "on a spectrum" entails.

For my money, Dawkin's characterization of sex as "pretty damn binary" seems as good a description as any. I'll leave it at that, and turn to the more interesting part of our discussion.

"Pretty binary" means it isn't binary.