Live data from Hacker News

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

restoredcdc.org

171–180 of 195 posts

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

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you have a vagina, and you have a period every month, and you need to take care of that in a hygenic way, it doesn't matter as what gender you identify, the vagina doesn't care.

And that’s exactly the kind of gender inclusive language they are purging. Because this executive order attempts to define a person with a vagina as a women and only a women.

Yes and what does that matter? If you have a vagina and you identity as a whatever, the article is still true for you. The medical advice doesn't matter what you identity yourself as. The information is about the specific organs. It doesn't matter what you identify yourself as. It shouldn't matter. It's weird that people think that these articles need to be adjusted for DEI. They are about the body, not about the mind.

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

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s exactly the kind of gender inclusive language they are purging. Because this executive order attempts to define a person with a vagina as a women and only a women.

Yes and what does that matter? If you have a vagina and you identity as a whatever, the article is still true for you. The medical advice doesn't matter what you identity yourself as. The information is about the specific organs. It doesn't matter what you identify yourself as. It shouldn't matter. It's weird that people think that these articles need to be adjusted for DEI. They are about the body, not about the min…

And in the end, it's correct that this information is meant for the biological woman, and not the biological man. So it would just become confusing if you say it also applies to men. Because biological men don't have a vagina.

If you are a woman that identifies as a man, then you will know that you are biologically a woman, and that the medical advice for woman applies to you.

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

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and what does that matter? If you have a vagina and you identity as a whatever, the article is still true for you. The medical advice doesn't matter what you identity yourself as. The information is about the specific organs. It doesn't matter what you identify yourself as. It shouldn't matter. It's weird that people think that these articles need to be adjusted for DEI. They are about the body, not about the min…

And in the end, it's correct that this information is meant for the biological woman, and not the biological man. So it would just become confusing if you say it also applies to men. Because biological men don't have a vagina. If you are a woman that identifies as a man, then you will know that you are biologically a woman, and that the medical advice for woman applies to you.

Well. We’ve come full circle. If you want to go back to the comment where i said “When trying to communicate information to people, it’s best to meet them where they’re at.” And then you can have the conversation as many time as you like.

Fundamentally, what is happening is not removing inclusive language. It’s removing useful documents because they contain words that are not allowed to be spoken anymore. Setting aside your feelings about binary gender - imagine this was about some cultural group: goths or birders or whatever. Would it not be concerning that the gov was trying to eliminate any acknowledgement that birders exist?

A page with advice for lgbtq travelers had “LGBTQ” changed to “LGB”. That’s not removing references to gender that had been forced in to be inclusive. That’s trying to erase actual people from the official record. Not wanting them to exist. If that doesn’t alarm you, idk what would.

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

#174
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yes, because it would be unforgivably woke to acknowledge women as people.

No you've missed the point, which is that "people" includes both women and men.

Men cannot be pregnant, which is obvious from the fact that male sexual development does not produce a female reproductive system.

The term "pregnant people" is not just unnecessarily obfuscating but also linguistically erases the group of people who can actually be pregnant - that is, women.

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

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

According to you. Not according to the trans-men who have undergone c-sections. Whether that is happening or not is not debatable - there are people who identify as trans-men who have gotten c-sections. Just as the sky is blue. The question then shifts to why you believe your interpretation of their identity is more valuable than their interpretation of their identity. This is where people really struggle to make the…

Sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. If I decide to identify myself as a dog or a lampshade, it doesn't mean that I am a dog or a lampshade. It's just words.

Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. The mere utterance of words does not alter that material fact.

Also worth considering is just how contradictory it is for her to try to identify into a sex class that is, by definition, incapable of being pregnant.

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

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to you. Not according to the trans-men who have undergone c-sections. Whether that is happening or not is not debatable - there are people who identify as trans-men who have gotten c-sections. Just as the sky is blue. The question then shifts to why you believe your interpretation of their identity is more valuable than their interpretation of their identity. This is where people really struggle to make the…

Sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. If I decide to identify myself as a dog or a lampshade, it doesn't mean that I am a dog or a lampshade. It's just words. Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. The mere utterance of words does not alter that material fact. Also worth considering is just how contradictory it is for he…

> Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman.

Uh, no. Just according to you. “Woman” isn’t easy to just say like that, there’s no one definitive way to tell who is a woman.

I notice you didn’t point to any objective truth, most likely because you can’t. I think this conversation is way over your head, and I’m not going to try to convince people who do not have the mental capacity to understand what I’m saying.

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. If I decide to identify myself as a dog or a lampshade, it doesn't mean that I am a dog or a lampshade. It's just words. Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. The mere utterance of words does not alter that material fact. Also worth considering is just how contradictory it is for he…

> Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. Uh, no. Just according to you. “Woman” isn’t easy to just say like that, there’s no one definitive way to tell who is a woman. I notice you didn’t point to any objective truth, most likely because you can’t. I think this conversation is way over your head, and I’m not going to try to convinc…

Think about this logically. Consider a person. This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. Which means that this person must be a woman.

Or, we can look at this from the other direction. Male sexual development does not result in a female reproductive system. Therefore this person is not a man.

You can perform this exercise of logic with any species that has individuals with different reproductive roles. For example: consider a chicken. This chicken lays eggs. From this we know that this chicken has a female reproductive system. Therefore this chicken must be a hen, not a cock.

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

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in the end, it's correct that this information is meant for the biological woman, and not the biological man. So it would just become confusing if you say it also applies to men. Because biological men don't have a vagina. If you are a woman that identifies as a man, then you will know that you are biologically a woman, and that the medical advice for woman applies to you.

Well. We’ve come full circle. If you want to go back to the comment where i said “When trying to communicate information to people, it’s best to meet them where they’re at.” And then you can have the conversation as many time as you like. Fundamentally, what is happening is not removing inclusive language. It’s removing useful documents because they contain words that are not allowed to be spoken anymore. Setting asi…

Well I think that it's a bit of waste of time and money to spend so much to adjust articles to please some people that, in my opinion, are complaining about unimportant things.

I don't see how it's a big problem in our society that medical texts aren't explicitly acknowledging the existense of "other genders" when it's not even relevant.

Why don't we focus ourselves on real world problems?

I'm not necessarily supporting that they're changing stuff back now, but I'm also not necessarily supporting the changes in the first place. I think it's a silly fight between idealists in opposite camps. And to be honest, I think the idealists in the opposite camp had too much of a run, and it went way too far, and now the other side is trying to win back some ground, and of course they also exaggerate and go too far. But maybe we will eventually end up in in the balanced middle. So in that sense I'm not too worried about these changes. Also because I don't think it's a very important issue anyway compared to the many issues going on in the world. I think LGBT people are living in the best time ever. I think there is more acceptance, recognition and tolerance for that, more than ever before. So I don't understand why some people are pushing this forward so much as if it is a major issue. If you let the current trend continue, it will get better by itself. Now that they are pushing for it so much it actually works contraproductive, as you can see. Many people now are fed up with all these changes where we need to make a special arrangement for these people. But that is actually the opposite of equality. So I can understand that many people are getting fed up with it and want to get rid of it.

So I don't see a threat here. I don't think that there are many people that actively wants to erradicate the LBGT movement, of course there are always extremists, but it's not the majority. People just want that we can live our lives without having to take someones preferred pronoun into account all the time. We want to do our work, we don't want to be a personal therapist for every LBTQ person.

The fact only that this abbreviation is being updated all the time because some new group feels excluded itself shows how pathetic this whole thing is. Why can't we just say that we are all human, and be done with it? Why would I care if some document from the government names me by my biological gender? That doesn't define who you are.

You know you can make a problem out of anything if you want. I could be upset because my preffered color is green and I want the letters to be in green font. And I can start a whole religion based on that and get many people all worked up about the fact that they're receiving letters where their preferred color is ignored. It doesn't sound that weird actually, now in these times. 20 years ago it would have been a joke.

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

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. Uh, no. Just according to you. “Woman” isn’t easy to just say like that, there’s no one definitive way to tell who is a woman. I notice you didn’t point to any objective truth, most likely because you can’t. I think this conversation is way over your head, and I’m not going to try to convinc…

Think about this logically. Consider a person. This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. Which means that this person must be a woman. Or, we can look at this from the other direction. Male sexual development does not result in a female reproductive system. Therefore this person is not a man. You can perform this exercise of logic with any species that ha…

> This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system.

No, no you can't. You can in 99% of circumstances, but not absolutely. They may also have a penis, or testicles, or any combination of reproductive organs. Yes, really.

But even if you could assume this, which you can't, you ALSO can't assume that a female reproductive system makes a woman. Because gender is complicated.

For example, you might call the bank teller "ma'am". Did you examine her reproductive organs? No, right? So this should be impossible - how did you know she was a woman?

Because, regardless of what bumbling idiots on the internet will claim, gender is inherently a social construct. You understand she is a woman because of the societal context of her clothes, her face, her hair, her makeup, and 1001 other tiny little things. Your brain then computes these all together and you determine "woman". But, she could have a penis.

In fact, just statistically speaking, you've encountered many women with penises and you will never know who they are, because they are women by your own perception. The same goes with men. Whether you choose to acknowledge this or remain a bumbling idiot, I do not care. This conversation is stupid, and frankly beneath me.

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

#180
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN