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

161–170 of 195 posts

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

#161

Post by crowselect »

gitaarik wrote: post #150
crowselect wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When trying to communicate information to people, it’s best to meet them where they’re at. If i start calling you she when you would like to be called he or they, will you hear what i am saying or will you get hung up on being misgendered?

And btw, all genders are imaginary. Like many things, gender is made up.

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

#162

Post by gitaarik »

crowselect wrote: post #161
gitaarik wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When trying to communicate information to people, it’s best to meet them where they’re at. If i start calling you she when you would like to be called he or they, will you hear what i am saying or will you get hung up on being misgendered? And btw, all genders are imaginary. Like many things, gender is made up.

Yeah, well in personal circumstances , and you can take someones preferred pronoun into account. But why would you be offended in general texts where the gender doesn't even matter.

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

#163

Post by asacrowflies »

Vuska wrote: post #160
asacrowflies wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a strong correlation need to forced into a false binary true or false by the law or government?? Myself and others have already gone over the outliers... Again you are focusing on "should be" vs what objectively and scientifically just IS. which is the very definition of culture vs science.

It's not a forced binary. There are no in-between gametes. There are large gametes (eggs) and small gametes (sperm). The law and government doesn't get to decide this, as you say, it just is. How the law reacts to the scientific fact of the sex binary is a different matter.

There is plenty of in between on what to classify someone who doesn't produce either gamete. And the only answer you seem to have it's that it's obvious because 'should'. While also thinking it's acceptable to use the law to force this conclusion against scientific research. Much like a religious dogma...

Anyways I'm done with this conversation, the whole point was to tease out how absurd and non objective your argument was and I think I have achieved that well enough for others to read for themselves whether this circular logic makes sense or is just to rationalize bigotry.

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

#164

Post by consteval »

Vuska wrote: post #160
asacrowflies wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a strong correlation need to forced into a false binary true or false by the law or government?? Myself and others have already gone over the outliers... Again you are focusing on "should be" vs what objectively and scientifically just IS. which is the very definition of culture vs science.

It's not a forced binary. There are no in-between gametes. There are large gametes (eggs) and small gametes (sperm). The law and government doesn't get to decide this, as you say, it just is. How the law reacts to the scientific fact of the sex binary is a different matter.

The problem here is that you’re hand-waving people’s identity behind what you believe it “should” be - which isn’t actually easy to tell! You can have ovaries, XY chromosomes, eggs, male characteristics, and on and on and on in infinite permutations.

Of course, they (meaning people who identify different than you think they “should”) also hand-wave everything away. The difference is they are… them. Their opinion on their identity is more important.

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

#165

Post by consteval »

ciiiicii wrote: post #143
novemp wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

Right, because we don’t perform c-sections on pregnant raccoons in hospitals.

The term is perfectly inclusive. It includes everyone it should, women, trans men, etc, and nobody it shouldn’t, like raccoons.

Your term isn’t like that, which is why nobody uses it. Well, I bet vets might use it, it might make sense there.

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

#166

Post by ciiiicii »

consteval wrote: post #165
ciiiicii wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Right, because we don’t perform c-sections on pregnant raccoons in hospitals. The term is perfectly inclusive. It includes everyone it should, women, trans men, etc, and nobody it shouldn’t, like raccoons. Your term isn’t like that, which is why nobody uses it. Well, I bet vets might use it, it might make sense there.

[flagged]

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

#167

Post by crowselect »

gitaarik wrote: post #162
crowselect wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When trying to communicate information to people, it’s best to meet them where they’re at. If i start calling you she when you would like to be called he or they, will you hear what i am saying or will you get hung up on being misgendered? And btw, all genders are imaginary. Like many things, gender is made up.

Yeah, well in personal circumstances , and you can take someones preferred pronoun into account. But why would you be offended in general texts where the gender doesn't even matter.

Can you give an example of gender being put into texts where it doesn’t matter? Or are you just buying the talking points of an administration that has no qualms deleting women’s health data and osha regulations wholesale?

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

#168

Post by gitaarik »

crowselect wrote: post #167
gitaarik wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, well in personal circumstances , and you can take someones preferred pronoun into account. But why would you be offended in general texts where the gender doesn't even matter.

Can you give an example of gender being put into texts where it doesn’t matter? Or are you just buying the talking points of an administration that has no qualms deleting women’s health data and osha regulations wholesale?

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.

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

#169

Post by consteval »

ciiiicii wrote: post #166
consteval wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because we don’t perform c-sections on pregnant raccoons in hospitals. The term is perfectly inclusive. It includes everyone it should, women, trans men, etc, and nobody it shouldn’t, like raccoons. Your term isn’t like that, which is why nobody uses it. Well, I bet vets might use it, it might make sense there.

[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 their logic consistent. In my opinion, your interpretation is inherently less valuable because, well, you aren't them.

One may wish to look to some one true objective truth. It does not exist. Women and men is not clear-cut and has never been clear-cut. There are those who may have a uterus, ovaries, and XY chromosomes. Or testes and a vagina, with XX ovaries. Or maybe ovaries with XXY chromosomes.

We can hand-wave these people away, sure, but remember - you're competing with a perfectly inclusive term. If you hand-wave those people away then you admit your term isn't perfectly inclusive and is therefore worse, so we're back at square one.

Can you find one true external factor that determines a binary gender for every human who has existed, may exist, or is currently existing, with no exceptions? You may be tempted to answer - but I should warn you, it can, and will, be trivially disputed.

Or, you can skip all of this "pursuit of truth" nonsense and just say "pregnant people", which DOES encompass anyone who is pregnant and who has existed, or may exist, or is currently existing.

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

#170

Post by crowselect »

gitaarik wrote: post #168
crowselect wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example of gender being put into texts where it doesn’t matter? Or are you just buying the talking points of an administration that has no qualms deleting women’s health data and osha regulations wholesale?

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.
Post reply on HN