World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Please give us a widely accepted definition for 'female' based in science.
Females have larger gametes. Males have smaller gametes. Just because this doesn't apply to 100% of cases doesn't make this an accepted definition -- everything has exceptions in nature. 98-99% is good enough for a categorization though.
Does this affect how transwomen do in women's category? Probably 98-99% not (hah), since IOC has declared this all works just fine?
Still it's still a bit controversial, e.g. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref this study showed one set of cases where hormone treatment removed most differences in transwomen vs women but they remained significantly faster runners.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503/ this seems to show that transwomen lose very little of their biological advantage. "Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. "
Who made this the accepted definition? Because you haven't shown me who came up with it and who agrees with it.
Also "doesn't apply to 100% of cases" is not a way to scientifically define something, so I doubt it's accepted. But feel free to prove me wrong since you came up with links that don't support your claim.
Evolution, as far as we can tell.
I usually approach these things from the point of view of trying to reach truth together, not from the point of view of trying to use sources as hammers to beat down your opponent. Are you different from me in this way?
Sorry, 'evolution' is a process and does not come up with definitions. Scientists do.
Since you apparently can't find any scientists who agree with you, I think it's safe to say you're wrong.
I'm not sure what we're conflicted here about, so let's clarify: Are you saying that I cannot find any scientists to agree with me on my claim that males have smaller gametes and females have larger gametes? Also: what's the standard we're aiming at here? What do I need to find to convince you that I'm right? Do I need to find a live actual scientist that answers this question for me, or do you need a scientific paper or something? I'm guessing that a basic biology book is not enough for you, since this fact definitely is in every one of them.
You said it is "an accepted definition" for both, but that there are exceptions, which is not scientific. Definitions do not have exceptions in science. If the definition is not universal, the definition is thrown out and a new one is found. That's how science works.
Why would you say that? How do you define "scientific"? Might you be conflating it with some pure form of science, like mathematics or pure logic?
I'm sorry, if you think "exception to the rule" is a thing in science, you really don't understand science.
That's like saying there's an "exception to the rule" of the first law of thermodynamics. There just isn't because there can't be. If there was, we would have to redefine that law of thermodynamics.
Would you say that biology is not a science? Is your point that if a theory has exceptions, it needs to be replaced with a better theory?
I'm not absolutely certain as it's not exactly my main area of study, but I think nature and biology don't fit 100% well into such thinking.
Yes, that is literally how science works. Are you really not aware of that?
Ok, so how would you reconcile these two things into one better theory:
Do you throw it all away because of that 1%?
Yes. Yes you do. Just like you would if 1% of the matter in the universe violated the first law of thermodynamics.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to continue explaining very basic concepts of science to you.
Well, you failed trying to convince me you have any idea what you're talking about, but at least you succeeded in emphasizing a stereotype. Have a nice day.
I have no idea what stereotype you're talking about unless you think I'm stereotyping people who don't understand the scientific method.
Does not contain male levels of testosterone post maturity.
What are 'male levels of testosterone' exactly?
Are men with hypergonadism not men?
Don't be obtuse. It's considered a malady in males, hence the full term "Male hypogonadism".
Your definition of female:
"Does not contain male levels of testosterone post maturity."
That includes men with hypogonadism.
It's not my fault that the medical term doesn't agree with your definition.
Oh? Explain why you think "male" is specified in the disease then if my definition were not correct?
You defined 'female' purely based on testosterone levels. That's not my fault if it fits some men.
So you can't. Got it.
I literally did. I'm not sure why you're pretending I didn't, but okay.
Again, it's not my fault that your definition includes some men.
By the way, can you find any biologist who agrees with that definition? Because I've looked and I can't.
The definition stands with an express exception due to pathology. The exception that proves the rule.
Show me a scientist that doesn't agree. Good luck when blood test paperwork literally declares the range for males.
That is not a biologist. Please find one. Name. Paper.
That is not how science works. That is a folk idea of rules.
Nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever.
Now, either show me some evidence that actual biologists agree with you or we're done.
"Testosterone is the primary male hormone responsible for regulating sex differentiation, producing male sex characteristics, spermatogenesis, and fertility"
"Biologically, males are defined as the sex that produces the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm)"
Edit: So basically every biologist on the planet that understands basic mammalian anatomy.
I read your second link first since it had the word 'defined' in it and I saw that you didn't read past that sentence, because you would know a bit more if you did. You are not here in good faith.
Yes, vague nonsensical statements are going to work. The abstract says nothing along the lines of what you appear to suggest it is.
You are the one not here in good faith. You've yet to substantiate a claim, and are obviously only here to defend your agenda, and not the science
What did I suggest it is? Because you're the one making the claim here, not me. All I said was that you did not read it further.
A claim. Substantiate it.
No, I have no reason to play the "prove I'm not here in good faith" game. You clearly did not read the whole paper, you read one sentence and thought it supported your point. I'll leave it up to everyone else to read the paper and judge for themselves.
Also, I do not give in to silly demands. If you had requested I substantiate it, maybe this would have ended differently.
Edit: Also, looking into your history, I see you've been breaking a few of our community rules.
It was not a 'silly demand'. It was an implied argument:
Your statement was either a claim that can be substantiated and should be otherwise it is a personal attack for which you should be banned for 3 days in this world you live in where "I feel seen" is considered uncivil.
But, I think you knew this which is why you, by your own admission, immediately scrambled for an excuse to ban me by examining my history in hopes anything was there so you could press what you think is an 'I win' button. Sadly, by abusing your mod powers all you do is hurt Lemmy and the fact you did the exact same thing less than an hour later to someone else you weren't arguing in good faith with tells me this is a serious problem that I doubt is going to get fixed.
So, enjoy your own personal 4Chan for however long it lasts but know you lost the argument when you couldn't resort to anything but an unstubstantiated ad hominem and had to hide behind false authority to cover it up.
XX chromosomes
So you're not female if you have Swyer Syndrome.
Not a woman, right? Despite not even being able to tell even when you see them naked, right?
How about XXY people? Men or women? Because they usually look like men, but at least one got pregnant.
Correct. Human, worth just as much as everybody else, but not technically female.
So males can get pregnant?
Your own quote tells me that people with chromosomal abnormalities tend to be sterile, so no. XX makes you a woman. XY makes you a man. Abnormalities are just that, abnormal. Trans people have problems and cutting them up is not the solution.
That is not how science works. There is not "exception to the rule" in science. That's not how it works. If you can't come up with a scientific definition that biologists agree with you on, just admit it. None of you seem to be able to. You think you know the science, but you can't back it up.
that's rich coming from the side that consistently fails to define what a woman is. I gave you a definition that can be used on 99% of the global population.
I can define a woman very easily. You just won't like it. A woman is a human who expresses the modern gender traits we associate with women.
Of course, 'woman' and 'female' are two very different things.
And you still don't understand how science works.
Also, my "side" is the one where you treat people the way you want to be treated.
Speaks about science and then says that a woman is whatever I want them to be. How the fuck is that supposed to be scientific.
I don't want to be mutilated, so that doesn't hold any water either.
I literally did not say that. At all. You clearly didn't read what I wrote.
Gender is not scientific, it is cultural. You just don't know the difference between gender and biological sex.
Also-
That is not what "treat others the way you want to be treated" means, and I think you know that. Also, most trans people do not have gender-affirming surgery (which is not mutilation and that's why surgeons are willing to do it). Also also, I hope you're not circumcised or have any body piercings or tattoos.
I doubt we'll get any common ground here lnd I'm starting to realize that this is a waste of time
True, we will not find common ground since you think that gender and sex are the same thing, that doctors mutilate a small number of the trans population, and you oddly won't tell me how you've been "mutilated," which makes me think you are, at the very least, circumcised.
Are you saying we can't know if someone is male or female just by looking at them and that there are other options according to the discussion below?
There are clear visual markers, but in the age of misguided mutilations chromosomes are the clearest indicator we have.