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/

[oldbadger]

Do you really not understand the difference between those two? Biological sex relates to one's physical characteristics, you know, genitalia and such. Attractions are feelings that individuals have for others.

No, I don't understand your ideas about any differences.

You tell me that 'Attractions are feelings'......... so where did you get that from? A specialist in the generation and development of deoxyribonucleic acid?

Genetics is far too complicated a subject for lay folks to understand, yet alone to try and dictate, you know. So I need to ask you, is this subject matter involved in your work? What do you do for work? I am a retired adults trainer.

Read what Nobel Laureate John Sulston has written........ 'Roughly one nucleotide base in every thousand is what endows us with our individuality'

So when folks tell us how we are either one sex and sexuality or another, maybe because they saw an article on telly or read a magazine, that probably won't count for much.

Sexuality is as individual as our fingerprints, I'm guessing.

[brunumb]

You tell me that 'Attractions are feelings'......... so where did you get that from? A specialist in the generation and development of deoxyribonucleic acid?

I'm sorry, but if that represent your level of understanding in the matter there is nothing I can say that will make any significant improvement.
SMH

[brunumb]

I'd encourage everyone to approach the research with an open mind.

Scientific American Goes Woke
A case study in how identity politics poisons science
Michael Shermer
18 Nov 2021

https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/s ... 1ba6e4a581

[oldbadger]

I didn't claim there was no genetic basis for asexuality that could explain why someone has that preference, but barring some other physical problem (eg. if male, ED, or inability to obtain or maintain an erection due to lack of interest), an asexual person could presumably engage in sex and reproduce just like any other person.

You could have written that about an asexual woman, or a homosexual woman.......or man. But their interests are quite separated from heterosexuality.

Of course there are bisexual people who can be sexually attracted to some people from either gender. We are so different from each other..... as different as our fingerprints.

Nothing in their physical makeup prevents them from being a sexual being, but for whatever reason they don't have any interest in sex (which I admit is unusual). But that fact that, physically, they could engage in sex suggests that being asexual is a decision, a preference, a choice they've made (regardless of the reason for it). I don't like eggs, but there is nothing stopping me from eating them besides my own preference and lack of desire.

You have not researched asexuality or you would not find it so unusual. I have known asexual men and many asexual women, in fact one gentleman in our tea and chat group of four persons...... is asexual and never married nor had sexual relations in his 70 years.

I wouldn't put IQ and asexuality in the same category. A person with a low IQ cannot suddenly decide to have a high IQ. But an asexual person could suddenly decide they wanted to involve themselves in sexual activity and physically do it ... they just prefer not to for whatever reason.

Our genes have made us in to such individual people, and whereas some develop a lower IQ, others can be extremely bright......... or muscular, or sexually individual........ etc.

And now even churches are beginning to recognise that sexuality is individual. Here is the latest news about that from the UK:-

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ch ... 9fbd&ei=47
© Thomson Reuters
LONDON (Reuters) - The Church of England will work towards drafting new pastoral guidance and other material needed to allow same-sex couples to receive blessings from priests over the next few months, it said on Saturday.

[oldbadger]

You tell me that 'Attractions are feelings'......... so where did you get that from? A specialist in the generation and development of deoxyribonucleic acid?

I'm sorry, but if that represent your level of understanding in the matter there is nothing I can say that will make any significant improvement.
SMH

Even churches have been and continue to be changing opinions about the individuality of sexuality.
Here is the most recent movement in that direction.
So it would seem that your understanding of this subject matter is not so advanced, after all.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ch ... 9fbd&ei=47
© Thomson Reuters
LONDON (Reuters) - The Church of England will work towards drafting new pastoral guidance and other material needed to allow same-sex couples to receive blessings from priests over the next few months, it said on Saturday.

The Church's governing body, called the General Synod, held a four-hour debate on the matter, which has revealed divisions within the institution after the synod voted in February to let gay couples have a prayer service after a civil marriage.

[brunumb]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #245]

This issue is not about gay couples, or marriages, or same sex attraction. That was pretty much settled a few years back. It's about biological sex. The church is in no position to tell anyone how many sexes there are. It's not a religious matter. It's basic biological science. The vast majority of the 8 billion people on this planet will tell you that there are two sexes, male and female which express as men and women. Millions of years of evolution and sexual reproduction have relied on and affirmed that fact.

Given that sex has evolved with the specific purpose of reproduction within a species, this definition from the video* I posted earlier is pretty apt:
A man is a human being naturally ordered towards the act of impregnation. A woman is a human being naturally ordered towards the act of gestation or being pregnant. Sex is binary.

* The One Question Transgender Advocates Can’t Answer


The discussion of chromosome variations beyond XX and XY in this video is excellent.

[boatsnguitars]

Antiscientific sentiment bombards our politics, or so says the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW). Chief among these antiscientific sentiments, the IDW cites the rising visibility of transgender civil rights demands. To the IDW, trans people and their advocates are destroying the pillars of our society with such free-speech–suppressing, postmodern concepts as: “trans women are women,” “gender-neutral pronouns,” or “there are more than two genders.” Asserting “basic biology” will not be ignored, the IDW proclaims. “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

The irony in all this is that these “protectors of enlightenment” are guilty of the very behavior this phrase derides. Though often dismissed as just a fringe internet movement, they espouse unscientific claims that have infected our politics and culture. Especially alarming is that these “intellectual” assertions are used by nonscientists to claim a scientific basis for the dehumanization of trans people. The real world consequences are stacking up: the trans military ban, bathroom bills, and removal of workplace and medical discrimination protections, a 41-51 percent suicide attempt rate and targeted fatal violence . It’s not just internet trolling anymore.

Contrary to popular belief, scientific research helps us better understand the unique and real transgender experience. Specifically, through three subjects: (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology and (3) endocrinology. So, hold onto your parts, whatever they may be. It’s time for “the talk.”

BIOLOGICAL SEX: HOW YOU GET IT
Nearly everyone in middle school biology learned that if you’ve got XX chromosomes, you’re a female; if you’ve got XY, you’re a male. This tired simplification is great for teaching the importance of chromosomes but betrays the true nature of biological sex. The popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.

Why? Because biological sex is far more complicated than XX or XY (or XXY, or just X). XX individuals could present with male gonads. XY individuals can have ovaries. How? Through a set of complex genetic signals that, in the course of a human’s development, begins with a small group of cells called the bipotential primordium and a gene called SRY.

A newly fertilized embryo initially develops without any indication of its sex. At around five weeks, a group of cells clump together to form the bipotential primordium. These cells are neither male nor female but have the potential to turn into testes, ovaries or neither. After the primordium forms, SRY—a gene on the Y chromosome discovered in 1990, thanks to the participation of intersex XX males and XY females—might be activated.*

Though it is still not fully understood, we know SRY plays a role in pushing the primordium toward male gonads. But SRY is not a simple on/off switch, it’s a precisely timed start signal, the first chord of the “male gonad” symphony. A group of cells (instrument sections) must all express SRY (notes of the chord), at the right time (conductor?). Without that first chord, the embryo will play a different symphony: female gonads, or something in between.

And there’s more! While brief and coordinated SRY-activation initiates the process of male-sex differentiation, genes like DMRT1 and FOXL2 maintain certain sexual characteristics during adulthood. If these genes stop functioning, gonads can change and exhibit characteristics of the opposite sex. Without these players constantly active, certain components of your biological sex can change.

There’s still more! SRY, DMRT1, and FOXL2 aren’t directly involved with other aspects of biological sex. Secondary sex characteristics—penis, vagina, appearance, behavior—arise later, from hormones, environment, experience, and genes interacting. To explore this, we move from the body to the brain, where biology becomes behavior.

THE BRAIN: WHERE STUFF GETS “MADE UP”
When the biology gets too complicated, some point to differences between brains of males and females as proof of the sexual binary. But a half century of empirical research has repeatedly challenged the idea that brain biology is simply XY = male brain or XX = female brain. In other words, there is no such thing as “the male brain” or “the female brain.” This is not to say that there are no observable differences. Certain brain characteristics can be sexually dimorphic: observable average differences across males and females. But like biological sex, pointing to “brain sex” as the explanation for these differences is wrong and hinders scientific research.

Let’s just take the most famous example of sexual dimorphism in the brain: the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area (sdnPOA). This tiny brain area with a disproportionately sized name is slightly larger in males than in females. But it’s unclear if that size difference indicates distinctly wired sdnPOAs in males versus females, or if—as with the bipotential primordium—the same wiring is functionally weighted toward opposite ends of a spectrum. Throw in the observation that the sdnPOA in gay men is closer to that of straight females than straight males, and the idea of “the male brain” falls apart.

Trying to link sex, sex chromosomes and sexual dimorphism is also useless for understanding other brain properties. The hormone vasopressin is dimorphic but is linked to both behavioral differences and similarities across sex. Simply put, the idea of a sexual binary isn’t scientifically useful, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the brain. It also happens that transgender people have the brains to prove it.

It’s easy to see sexual dimorphisms and conclude that the brain is binary; easy, but wrong. Thanks to the participation of trans people in research, we have expanded our understanding of how brain structure, sex and gender interact. For some properties like brain volume and connectivity, trans people possessed values in between those typical of cisgender males and females, both before and after transitioning. Another study found that for certain brain regions, trans individuals appeared similar to cis-individuals with the same gender identity. In that same study, researchers found specific areas of the brain where trans people seemed closer to those with the same assigned sex at birth. Other researchers discovered that trans people have unique structural differences from cis-individuals.

THE BODY AND THE BRAIN AND THE HORMONES BETWIXT
As if the brain and body weren’t complicated enough, another biological factor influences the expression of biological sex in an individual: hormones. Anyone who has gone through puberty has felt the power of hormones firsthand. But like all things biology, hormones cannot be limited to the pubescent idea of “estrogen = female and testosterone = male.”

For one thing, all humans possess levels of estrogen, progesterone and testosterone with sex differences not as prominent as is popularly thought. During infancy and prepubescence, these hormones sit in a bipotential range, with no marked sex differences. Through puberty, certain sex hormones like estrogen, progesterone and testosterone become weighted toward one end of a spectrum. But in developed adults, estrogen and progesterone levels are on average similar between males and nonpregnant females. And while testosterone exhibits the largest difference between adult males and females, heritability studies have found that genetics (X vs. Y) only explains about 56 percent of an individual’s testosterone, suggesting many other influences on hormones. Furthermore, measurements of sex hormones levels in any one individual wildly vary across the range of “average” values regardless of how close or spread apart you take the measurements. The binary sex model not only insufficiently predicts the presence of hormones but is useless in describing factors that influence them.

Environmental, social and behavioral factors also influence hormones in both males and females, complicating the idea that hormones determine sex. Progesterone changes in response to typically male-coded social situations that involve dominance and competition. Estrogen, typically linked to feminine-coded behavior, also plays a role in masculine-coded dominance/power social scenarios. Though testosterone levels are different between males and females on average, many external factors can change these levels, such as whether or not a person is raising a child. Differing testosterone levels in both men and women can predict certain parenting behaviors. Even the content of a sexual fantasy can change testosterone levels. The fact is, behavior and environment—like cultural gender norms and expectations—influence sex-related hormones, and the biology of the body and brain itself.

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: BETTER TOGETHER
While this is a small overview, the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real. It is time that we acknowledge this. Defining a person’s sex identity using decontextualized “facts” is unscientific and dehumanizing. The trans experience provides essential insights into the science of sex and scientifically demonstrates that uncommon and atypical phenomena are vital for a successful living system. Even the scientific endeavor itself is quantifiably better when it is more inclusive and diverse. So, no matter what a pundit, politician or internet troll may say, trans people are an indispensable part of our living reality.

Transgender humans represent the complexity and diversity that are fundamental features of life, evolution and nature itself. That is a fact.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #244]

You have not researched asexuality or you would not find it so unusual. I have known asexual men and many asexual women, in fact one gentleman in our tea and chat group of four persons...... is asexual and never married nor had sexual relations in his 70 years.

I have no interest in researching asexuality, but it can be described as "unusual" (although I've not used that term an any of my posts) simply because of the ratio of asexual people to the general population. Being over 7' tall is also unusual, but that doesn't imply something is wrong with it. Unusual simply means not commonly occurring.

But you appear to be arguing against claims no one is making. Has anyone in this thread claimed that there are no asexual people, or that homosexuals, bisexuals, etc. don't exist? I certainly haven't. These people undoubtedly exist, but if you're placing someone in a gender category based on their physical, biological makeup, that can generally (ie. in most cases) be done without regard to their sexual activity preferences, or why those preferences came to be.

In normal development someone with a Y chromosome will develop male reproductive organs, facial hair, different proportion of body mass, etc. compared to a female having an XX pair. You refer to the person in your tea and chat group as a "gentleman", which I'd take to mean he is a biological male whose 23rd pair of chromosomes is XY. This is the fundamental point ... his lack of interest in sex with either females or males is a completely separate issue.

Whatever his stance is on sexual activity, his biological sex appears to be male. Would you suggest calling this person something other than a man, a male? You referred to this person as a gentleman yourself ... was that not because you see this person as a man? Why not use another term if you think this person is not a male, but should be placed into some other category (and what would that category be)?

[brunumb]

So, no matter what a pundit, politician or internet troll may say, trans people are an indispensable part of our living reality.

Nothing in that lengthy post refutes the binary nature of sex in humans, other animals, or even all those living things that reproduce sexually. Errors and abnormalities arise naturally from a process that is not 100% foolproof. They do not mean that the underlying principle is all wrong.

Please explain how "trans people are an indispensable part of our living reality". Are you suggesting that society would collapse without trans people? That is absurd. I can't understand why people are so ready to promote chemical and surgical procedures to young people which will inevitably lead to a far from ideal life. The reality is that they will more than likely be sterile, fail to experience pleasurable sex, be constantly in need of drugs and medical attention for the rest of what will be a shortened life. Is this a desirable outcome if it is not necessary? The lies and misinformation surrounding trans ideology have led people to the false conclusion that it is the only solution to young people feeling gender insecurity. They are rushed onto the treadmill and the clinics and surgeons are filling their coffers without any real concern for the aftermath of their treatment. De-transitioners are mercilessly attacked and silenced. One has to wonder why that would be necessary if the truth and the welfare of children are our ultimate priority.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #245]

This issue is not about gay couples, or marriages, or same sex attraction. That was pretty much settled a few years back.

..... so you did have more to say, after all? Now, clearly our researchers are of many differing opinions about our genetical evolution and variations, so you're never be going to show me how 'That was pretty much settled '.

It's about biological sex. The church is in no position to tell anyone how many sexes there are. It's not a religious matter. It's basic biological science. The vast majority of the 8 billion people on this planet will tell you that there are two sexes, male and female which express as men and women. Millions of years of evolution and sexual reproduction have relied on and affirmed that fact.

I don't think that you have even got that right. If you are building your ideas up from researching 'the vast majority of people' then it can be seen that you are a lay person and with no special qualifications to comment about reproduction, sex, sexuality and more.

Given that sex has evolved with the specific purpose of reproduction within a species, this definition from the video* I posted earlier is pretty apt:
A man is a human being naturally ordered towards the act of impregnation. A woman is a human being naturally ordered towards the act of gestation or being pregnant. Sex is binary.

Nature shows us how wrong you are. We have a male Carolina tree duck that is quite disinterested in the approaches of Carolina female ducks, and during some late springs he gathers golf balls together, makes a nest and sits them for about a month before losing interest.
If every human was genetically 'built' to only reproduce then that's what every human would want to do, and in exactly the same way as every other human.

Two simple examples to show how wrong you are.