Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Oh The Horror!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oh The Horror!


    Harvard lecturer takes heat for defending existence of biological sex on 'Fox & Friends'

    Her statement that there are two genders was labeled 'dangerous'

    Harvard lecturer Carole Hooven took heat from her own colleague after an appearance on Fox News this week in which she asserted that biological sex is real and defended the continued use of terms like "pregnant women" and "male and female."

    "The ideology seems to be that biology really isn’t as important as how somebody feels about themselves, or feels their sex to be," Hooven told "Fox & Friends" Wednesday. "The facts are that there are in fact two sexes — there are male and female — and those sexes are designated by the kind of gametes we produce."

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/harvard-l...biological-sex
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    One response to the twit'ter feed from the Harvard lecturer (Laura Lewis) opposing Hooven's comments.



    There seems to be some ambiguity about whether she has the authority to speak on Harvard's behalf.

    And this from another response
    There are plenty of trans people (most?) who would have absolutely no problem with her laying out the simple facts of how we define biological sex. Another way of saying it is reasonable trans people don't need to control how people describe reality to feel affirmed

    Agreed.
    Last edited by tabibito; 08-01-2021, 12:13 AM.
    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

    Comment


    • #3
      Very little in the way of interesting factual claims seem to be made in the OP linked video. It's difficult for me to assess it, since nothing meaningful seems to be being claimed or asserted.

      What puzzles me on these issues is the vehemence with which non-scientists who are conservatives [and I'm thinking of people in this forum rather than the OP Harvard person] seem to think that the scientific facts support their anti-transgender views, when they don't. Just because you personally feel in your gut that there ought to be or should be two genders, doesn't make it a scientific fact. What science has discovered about the biology of sex is that it's complicated.

      I'll remind you that had the movie Finding Nemo been scientifically accurate, when Nemo's mother died, Nemo's father would have changed sex in response. I'll leave people to imagine how much conservatives' heads would have exploded if Disney had exposed children in an extremely popular movie to the scientific fact that some animal species naturally undergo sex changes.
      Last edited by Starlight; 08-01-2021, 12:42 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        The biology of sex is simple. The psychology of sex is complicated.
        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          The biology of sex is simple.
          LOL. Not really. It's an incredibly complex matter of interacting hormones and DNA. It's only simple in a 5 year old's version of "you have a mummy and a daddy and they make a baby", but the actual biology of it is anything but simple.

          Here's a visualization of some of the variations that arise of the biology of sex, just for humans, not even considering other species that naturally do things like change sex, reproduce with only one sex, etc.

          The psychology of sex is complicated.
          How people think about sex, and how different societies implement gender paradigms can certainly be complicated.

          Something that's influenced my own thinking on this issue was learning that human societies throughout history on every continent - perhaps the majority of human societies in history - have developed cultural constructs to allow people to opt-out of their birth genders. Anthropologists studying other cultures realized that biological sex and how a society grouped people weren't always the same, and so realized we needed to separate the words sex and gender to describe those two different things, as some cultures recognize up to 5 different genders.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            LOL. Not really. It's an incredibly complex matter of interacting hormones and DNA. It's only simple in a 5 year old's version of "you have a mummy and a daddy and they make a baby", but the actual biology of it is anything but simple.
            Well, there is that. But in the everyday world it is simple, or has a superficial simplicity, or however else it might be termed - biological sports excluded, but the occurrence is statistically insignificant.



            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              But in the everyday world it is simple, or has a superficial simplicity, or however else it might be termed - biological sports excluded, but the occurrence is statistically insignificant.
              I'm not sure I see the merits of handwaving away intersex people for being statistically rare, when the topic is of the discussion is statistically rare sexual and gender variation.

              All too often the arguments I see from conservatives on the subject look worryingly akin to: "I learned when I was five that there were boys and girls. I don't want to know about anything else, that would be hard and complicated. Therefore everyone should be forced to conform to my simplistic categories so I don't have to think too much."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                I'm not sure I see the merits of handwaving away intersex people for being statistically rare, when the topic is of the discussion is statistically rare sexual and gender variation.

                All too often the arguments I see from conservatives on the subject look worryingly akin to: "I learned when I was five that there were boys and girls. I don't want to know about anything else, that would be hard and complicated. Therefore everyone should be forced to conform to my simplistic categories so I don't have to think too much."
                I'm not hand-waving anything away. The circumstances where it can be demonstrated that identifiable physiological or genetic reasons underlie gender fluidity are statistically insignificant. That doesn't declare that psychological reasons are invalid, nor does it declare that the people concerned are not significant.
                sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  I'm not hand-waving anything away. The circumstances where it can be demonstrated that identifiable physiological or genetic reasons underlie gender fluidity are statistically insignificant. That doesn't declare that psychological reasons are invalid, nor does it declare that the people concerned are not significant.
                  'Statistical (in)significance' is a technical term which does not mean what I presume you're trying to refer to here with regard to rarity.

                  I'm curious what your motive is for emphasizing the rarity of identifiable genetic or physiological reasons for gender fluidity?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    'Statistical (in)significance' is a technical term which does not mean what I presume you're trying to refer to here with regard to rarity.
                    No - I meant statistically insignificant. Data obtained from tests which initially indicated, as one example, a possible genetic influence in producing homosexuality, but which could not be replicated in subsequent tests, even by the initial researchers.

                    I'm curious what your motive is for emphasizing the rarity of identifiable genetic or physiological reasons for gender fluidity?
                    I have in mind such things as gender dysphoria, the term used in psychology to refer to many transgender people. Dysphoria (antonym: euphoria) tends to be intractable, and reassignment seems to do no more than alleviate some of the symptoms. As such, it is cause for sympathy (empathy being unavailable to people who don't know what any kind of dysphoria feels like.)
                    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      'Statistical (in)significance' is a technical term which does not mean what I presume you're trying to refer to here with regard to rarity.

                      I'm curious what your motive is for emphasizing the rarity of identifiable genetic or physiological reasons for gender fluidity?
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      No - I meant statistically insignificant. Data obtained from tests which initially indicated, as one example, a possible genetic influence in producing homosexuality, but which could not be replicated in subsequent tests, even by the initial researchers.



                      I have in mind such things as gender dysphoria, the term used in psychology to refer to many transgender people. Dysphoria (antonym: euphoria) tends to be intractable, and reassignment seems to do no more than alleviate some of the symptoms. As such, it is cause for sympathy (empathy being unavailable to people who don't know what any kind of dysphoria feels like.)
                      Be cautious using the term 'Statistical insignificance'. I won't say nobody uses it, but it's generally an uncommon term in the world of statistics.

                      Statistical significance is a term that measures the strength of the results of a single comparison. It is entirely dependent on the sample and sample size, and is a measure of test result likelihood, assuming the null hypothesis is true.

                      The appropriate term is not "insignificant", but is instead "not statistically significant", but that applies to a specific test, not an entire phenomenon. It means that the between the average between the test hypothesis and the null hypothesis was not large enough (given the sample size) to have confidence in saying that what was seen was unlikely to have happened through random fluctuations, if you assume that the null was true. That doesn't mean that the result was not accurate, or that it isn't even actually there.

                      The flip side of statistical significance is that it is still possible to have it, and for the result to be wrong. The standard test of 95% confidence is 1 in 20, a chance that while small, is still possible with an alarming amount of frequency. And the old saying also goes, with a large enough sample size, everything is statistically significant.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        No - I meant statistically insignificant.
                        Your use of the term didn't make sense in that context in post #6.

                        Dysphoria (antonym: euphoria) tends to be intractable, and reassignment seems to do no more than alleviate some of the symptoms.
                        ?!? This seems a flatly false claim.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          Your use of the term didn't make sense in that context in post #6.

                          ?!? This seems a flatly false claim.
                          Possibly
                          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Do any of you have a problem with the term pregnant women? As far as I know only women can get pregnant.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                              I'm not hand-waving anything away. The circumstances where it can be demonstrated that identifiable physiological or genetic reasons underlie gender fluidity are statistically insignificant. That doesn't declare that psychological reasons are invalid, nor does it declare that the people concerned are not significant.
                              Typically a society does not turn everything upside down to accommodate a minority that statistically represents less than 1% of the population. Especially when it causes far more problems than it ever fixes.

                              For instance, a biological boy who identifies as a girl demands to use the girl's restroom at school because he feels uncomfortable using the boy's restroom. So he's allowed to use the girl's restroom and no longer feels uncomfortable.

                              However, there are certainly a number of girls who now feel very uncomfortable sharing a girl's restroom with a biological male. For the sake of argument, let's say that most of the girls don't have an issue with it. That it is only a small percent, a mere 10% of the girl's who are uncomfortable.

                              What you ended up doing then by changing everything so as to make one student feel comfortable was to make a minimum of 50+ other students uncomfortable. Why should 50+ students be made uncomfortable just so one student isn't?

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Sparko, Today, 08:10 AM
                              2 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Gondwanaland  
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, 09-19-2021, 07:03 PM
                              5 responses
                              53 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Gondwanaland, 09-19-2021, 12:34 PM
                              19 responses
                              155 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by Gondwanaland, 09-19-2021, 10:21 AM
                              6 responses
                              98 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Ronson, 09-17-2021, 08:16 PM
                              14 responses
                              118 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X