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]

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.

As you can see from the Yale paper I link to below and the comments at the "sexology" site, there are some significant issues with those papers, including lumping of gender non-conforming people with transgender people. Since GNC folks are not transgender to begin with, including them with trans people in (alleged) studies about persistence of transgenderism is a massive error. That sort of fundamental error might be understandable in the studies from 30-50 years ago, but not in the more recent ones.

Further, the Yale paper notes:

The study SEGM cites is Steensma et al. (2013).59 But the Steensma study was not designed to (and the lead author has acknowledged) does not provide a basis for calculating what percentage of prepubertal children diagnosed with gender dysphoria persist with that diagnosis into adolescence. Rather, the Steensma study was designed only to study the characteristics of those who persisted.60 Among other limitations, in Steensma (2013), former patients who opted to not participate in the study (either refused to participate or did not respond to an offer to participate) were categorized as “desisters,” i.e., patients whose gender dysphoria resolved without transition or treatment. Patients can fail to respond to a study request for many reasons, including having moved away, receiving treatment elsewhere, or being uninterested in participating in a study. Thus, SEGM misuses the Steensma data by counting nonresponding patients as having “desisted” in experiencing gender dysphoria.61 Indeed, in published correspondence, Steensma emphasizes that the 2013 study should not be used to calculate the percentages of “persisters” and “desisters.”62 The misrepresentation of Steensma on the SEGM website constitutes a major violation of the scientific method and the accepted conventions of research.

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.

I'd venture that not a single one of us is at all qualified to debate those issues or even discuss them from a scientifically informed standpoint. I'm a biologist and I know better. It'd be like an endocrinologist trying to debate my work...they'd have no clue and reading a couple of websites is hardly sufficient.

Sure, that's true of all whistle-blower accounts.

Sorry, but unverified, undocumented stories on a web page are not at all compelling.

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.

The SEGM is a not a recognized scientific organization and has been referred to as an anti-trans, anti-LGTQ political group that deliberately misrepresents other people's work to push a rather hateful agenda.

The Yale School of Medicine wrote an article specifically calling them out: https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/resear ... d-science/

I strongly suggest you read the entire article, including the parts that directly address your earlier citations and claims about persistence of transgenderism.

Here's another article where Vice contacted some of the researchers cited by SEGM and they were pretty irate about how SEGM misrepresented their work: https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gg54/ ... are-minors

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.

Again, "someone on the internet said" is not a meaningful or compelling argument.

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

Huh? I never said social attitudes "accounts for all the data". Don't attribute things to me that I didn't say.

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.

The scientists you've cited describe it as a bit of a mystery that requires further research. That seems reasonable to me.

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."

LOL, no I never described evangelicals as "concerned". And I never said that "all evangelicals" are engaging in anti-LGBTQ hate, nor did I say that all anti-LGBTQ bigots are evangelicals.

But if you look at the current anti-LGBTQ hate campaigns, they are mostly comprised of evangelical Christians. Let's not deny that reality.

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.

Nah, I'm not going along with any sort of "when it comes to LGBTQ issues, evangelical Christians are just like any other group" nonsense. If needed, I can provide a wealth of evidence showing how they are the main proponents of anti-LGBTQ hate.

[Jose Fly]

When established facts like the binary nature of sex in humans (any mammals really when one thinks about it)

Already shown to be false, yet you persist in repeating it.

[Jose Fly]

BTW, anyone interested in a comprehensive review of gender dysphoria, treatments, protocols, and the current science behind them should definitely read the following Yale School of Medicine paper I cited above: https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/resear ... d-science/

Unfortunately the politicization of this issue has provided an opening for a great deal of misinformation to spread. Hopefully the info in the Yale article can offer some clarification and dispel some persistent myths.

[brunumb]

When established facts like the binary nature of sex in humans (any mammals really when one thinks about it)

Already shown to be false, yet you persist in repeating it.

No, it has not been shown to be false. You persist in denying it. Sex is the reproductive method in mammals. A human female produces stationary ova containing 23 chromosomes, one of which is X. A human male produces motile sperm containing 23 chromosomes, one of which is X or Y. When fertilisation occurs the cell contains 23 chromosome pairs which then may develop into a human being. Essentially very cell contains these 23 pairs and if XY is present the human becomes a male. The outcome is different from those with XX. It is all obviously binary. When things go wrong and conditions such as intersex arise, that is not the creation of a new sex. It is a fault within the binary sex system. People born without legs do not create a new subspecies of legless human beings.

As much as some people may have a desire to change their sex, it is not possible. Every cell of their body is part of an XX or XY machine that determines what they are. One can surgically manipulate the external appearance, but that does not change the underlying sex. Or, one can spend a lifetime fighting cell processes with a regime of drug treatments that do no more than attempt to contravene natural biochemical forces. Males cannot become females, and females cannot become males. When people undergo any form of transition it is just a cosmetic illusion. Ironically, at the same time they reinforce the binary nature of sex. No one transitions to an alternative to those two because they don't exist. Even people who are intersex in the main function as one or the other.

As to gender identity, that is where we enter clown world and the stupidity of a supposedly advanced human culture boggles the mind. It's like celebrating halloween, but not just for a day, or a month. The West does not need to fear a physical invasion from outside forces because their society is being white-anted from within.

[Jose Fly]

When established facts like the binary nature of sex in humans (any mammals really when one thinks about it)

Already shown to be false, yet you persist in repeating it.

No, it has not been shown to be false. You persist in denying it. Sex is the reproductive method in mammals. A human female produces stationary ova containing 23 chromosomes, one of which is X. A human male produces motile sperm containing 23 chromosomes, one of which is X or Y. When fertilisation occurs the cell contains 23 chromosome pairs which then may develop into a human being. Essentially very cell contains these 23 pairs and if XY is present the human becomes a male. The outcome is different from those with XX. It is all obviously binary. When things go wrong and conditions such as intersex arise, that is not the creation of a new sex. It is a fault within the binary sex system. People born without legs do not create a new subspecies of legless human beings.

As much as some people may have a desire to change their sex, it is not possible. Every cell of their body is part of an XX or XY machine that determines what they are. One can surgically manipulate the external appearance, but that does not change the underlying sex. Or, one can spend a lifetime fighting cell processes with a regime of drug treatments that do no more than attempt to contravene natural biochemical forces. Males cannot become females, and females cannot become males. When people undergo any form of transition it is just a cosmetic illusion. Ironically, at the same time they reinforce the binary nature of sex. No one transitions to an alternative to those two because they don't exist. Even people who are intersex in the main function as one or the other.

As to gender identity, that is where we enter clown world and the stupidity of a supposedly advanced human culture boggles the mind. It's like celebrating halloween, but not just for a day, or a month. The West does not need to fear a physical invasion from outside forces because their society is being white-anted from within.

I've provided multiple citations and links to valid scientific articles from highly qualified scientists in the relevant fields, each of which contain a suite of additional citations and links to even more scientific articles and resources.

You've not addressed any of it and instead have replied with nothing more than "Nuh uh" and your empty, citation-free say-so. I'm not sure why you think anyone would go with your say-so over the collective works of thousands of scientists, but that seems to be what you're expecting.

News flash: Bald assertions in internet forums do not trump actual science. You probably should have picked that up while debating creationists, but....here we are.

[oldbadger]

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.

Thank you for that......... and so please can you confirm that it is possible for a male with an XY chromosome pair to be asexual?

You might also tell me if you think a woman with an XX chromosome pair can be asexual?

[brunumb]

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.

Thank you for that......... and so please can you confirm that it is possible for a male with an XY chromosome pair to be asexual?

You might also tell me if you think a woman with an XX chromosome pair can be asexual?

Biological sex and sex attraction are separate things. Asexual simply means that someone is not sexually attracted to anyone, male or female. Homosexual means attracted to people of the same biological sex and such people can be male or female.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #225]

And you have provided nothing here in this discussion that demonstrates that what I have said is scientifically incorrect. I am a scientist myself with published papers and not just some internet numpty graduate of TikTok U.

[Jose Fly]

And you have provided nothing here in this discussion that demonstrates that what I have said is scientifically incorrect.

Bizarre denialism noted.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #226]

Thank you for that......... and so please can you confirm that it is possible for a male with an XY chromosome pair to be asexual?

You might also tell me if you think a woman with an XX chromosome pair can be asexual?

As brunumb commented, sex preferences are separate from biological sex makeup. I'd categorize someone being asexual, bisexual, homosexual, etc. a result of their personal preferences and desires, however those desires come about. I'm heterosexual and can't understand how a man could prefer another man over a woman, but I have no doubt that the desire of homosexuals for sexual activity with someone of their own sex (or no one at all) is genuine and real ... I'm just not "wired" that way myself.

There are certain foods I don't like (eg. broccoli, eggs, tomotoes) despite these being enjoyed by many (most?) other people, and the reason I don't like them is because of taste, texture, smell, etc. Just my personal response to these foods and maybe there is some genetic basis for it (I have no idea). I'd think an asexual disposition is similar ... some combination of things in the development of a person that results in the lack of sexual desire. But I don't think this is related to whether their 23rd pair of chromosomes is XX or XY. An asexual XY should be able to reproduce via the usual method ... but has no interest in doing the deed for some reason.