Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

restoredcdc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 195 posts

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#141

Post by throw16180339 »

crowselect wrote: post #135
gitaarik wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah bit they werd removed because they were supposedly written in a LBQT focused way?

1. If the goal is to remove LGBTQ content, or stuff related to diversity, they’re using a rocket launcher not a scalpel - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documen... 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people?

> 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people?

It's an explicit goal of Project 2025 to take rights away from queer people.

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#142

Post by me-vs-cat »

Vuska wrote: post #139
steego wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's find out if you're a bigot or not. I'll throw up Webster's definition for reference. Bigot – a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The capacity for pregnancy is not confined to individuals with a female (46,XX) chromosomal pattern. The real world is complicated, and intersex people can be born with a (46,XY) karyotype or mixed (46,XX) and (46,XY) karyotyp…

Sex is defined by which gametes are produced, not chromosomes.

What do you expect for people born without the capability to produce gametes?

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#143

Post by ciiiicii »

novemp wrote: post #140
unification_fan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pregnant people I'm usually not a bigot but that one is dumb

Even if you don't want to acknowledge trans men existing... women are still people. Pregnant women are pregnant people.

[flagged]

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#146

Post by defrost »

Vuska wrote: post #139
steego wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's find out if you're a bigot or not. I'll throw up Webster's definition for reference. Bigot – a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The capacity for pregnancy is not confined to individuals with a female (46,XX) chromosomal pattern. The real world is complicated, and intersex people can be born with a (46,XY) karyotype or mixed (46,XX) and (46,XY) karyotyp…

Sex is defined by which gametes are produced, not chromosomes.

What of the people that are born who don't produce gametes?

( For example, no gametes are produced in 85% of individuals with streak gonads )

The whole human sex | gender thing seems superficially clearcut but the real world edge cases are messy AF.

The aspect I personally find confusing is that the exceptions are relatively rare .. human births are straighforward enough for 98% of births, and of the 2% that pose a challenge the really curvy edge cases are rare (but real).

Why then do some people seeming lose their collective minds over real but rare occurrences and attempt to hammer every triangle into either a round or a square hole?

I have a purely empirical observational view of the world at large, forced a priori prescriptiveness at odds with the world seems more than a little flat earthy.

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#147

Post by crowselect »

throw16180339 wrote: post #141
crowselect wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. If the goal is to remove LGBTQ content, or stuff related to diversity, they’re using a rocket launcher not a scalpel - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documen... 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people?

> 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people? It's an explicit goal of Project 2025 to take rights away from queer people.

Project 2025? You mean that thing that they’d never heard of?

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#148

Post by gitaarik »

crowselect wrote: post #135
gitaarik wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah bit they werd removed because they were supposedly written in a LBQT focused way?

1. If the goal is to remove LGBTQ content, or stuff related to diversity, they’re using a rocket launcher not a scalpel - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documen... 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people?

Ok, but how many articles that were about DEI were removed compared to that weren't? If they do a big amount of work with a small error margin that wouldn't be so dramatic.

Also, 7.6% seems very high, what is this number based on, and in which cases does it really matter what your gender is? In what cases does the information need to take your gender into account, unless it's about specific organs, which are either masculine or feminine?

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#149

Post by crowselect »

gitaarik wrote: post #148
crowselect wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. If the goal is to remove LGBTQ content, or stuff related to diversity, they’re using a rocket launcher not a scalpel - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documen... 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people?

Ok, but how many articles that were about DEI were removed compared to that weren't? If they do a big amount of work with a small error margin that wouldn't be so dramatic. Also, 7.6% seems very high, what is this number based on, and in which cases does it really matter what your gender is? In what cases does the information need to take your gender into account, unless it's about specific organs, which are either m…

I’d say you’re looking at this wrong - the harm of a “dei” article staying up is nonexistent. The harm of an article about women’s health or workplace safety being taken down because it includes the word “gender” or “diverse” has the potential to cost people their lives.

7.6% is based on the google results for “percentage americans lgbtq” - if you want to know more about that number you can find more on said search engine. Is there a number you have in mind where the gov no longer has a responsibility to serve them?

> In what cases does the information need to take your gender into account, unless it's about specific organs, which are either masculine or feminine?

You’re confusing gender and sex. Gender is a description of social and cultural traits - sex is the one relating to organs and chromosomes. But either way, taking down pages about women’s health because of a law that claims to have the goal of protecting women is just dumb.

Re: Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back

#150

Post by gitaarik »

crowselect wrote: post #149
gitaarik wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but how many articles that were about DEI were removed compared to that weren't? If they do a big amount of work with a small error margin that wouldn't be so dramatic. Also, 7.6% seems very high, what is this number based on, and in which cases does it really matter what your gender is? In what cases does the information need to take your gender into account, unless it's about specific organs, which are either m…

I’d say you’re looking at this wrong - the harm of a “dei” article staying up is nonexistent. The harm of an article about women’s health or workplace safety being taken down because it includes the word “gender” or “diverse” has the potential to cost people their lives. 7.6% is based on the google results for “percentage americans lgbtq” - if you want to know more about that number you can find more on said search e…

But it's maybe also dumb to alter health articles to DEI when it's about scientific sex and not imaginary genders. In what case does a scientific health article need to take someone's gender preference into account?
Post reply on HN