Public health data disappeared. RestoredCDC.org is bringing it back • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by ciiiicii » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 9:41 PM UTC

novemp wrote: post #189

ciiiicii wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote: "This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system." You replied with: "No, no you can't." From this, it is reasonable to assume that you either you don't understand that pregnancy requires a female reproductive system, or that you don't understand what the female reproductive system is. You wrote: "You understand she is a woman because of the societal co…

> You wrote: "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." > From that, it is reasonable to assume that you have a view of women based on sexist stereotyping around clothes, hair and makeup. The person you are responding to was identifying the markers that cause the average person to make a snap decision on whether so…

[flagged]

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

#192

Post by novemp » Tue, Mar 11, 2025, 12:10 AM UTC

ciiiicii wrote: post #191

novemp wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You wrote: "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." > From that, it is reasonable to assume that you have a view of women based on sexist stereotyping around clothes, hair and makeup. The person you are responding to was identifying the markers that cause the average person to make a snap decision on whether so…

[flagged]

You didn't answer my question. When you meet a stranger, how do you decide which words to use for them if not the way they're purposely choosing to present themselves?

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

#193

Post by ciiiicii » Tue, Mar 11, 2025, 1:32 AM UTC

novemp wrote: post #192

ciiiicii wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You didn't answer my question. When you meet a stranger, how do you decide which words to use for them if not the way they're purposely choosing to present themselves?

Facial structure, body shape, voice. Humans have sufficient sexual dimorphism and are attuned to the differences enough to make this distinction correctly almost all of the time.

This is how we can, in most cases, ascertain a person's sex regardless of how they're attired.

It's also why the other commenter's view of women being "clothes, hair and makeup" is so absurd. A change of clothes, a haircut, and wiping off makeup doesn't somehow change women to men, or remove the ability of others to recognize sex.

Also, even if a person manages to disguise their sex or impersonate the opposite sex, this doesn't change the reality of their sex. Just may obscure it from observation, for some observers.

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

#194

Post by novemp » Tue, Mar 11, 2025, 6:05 AM UTC

ciiiicii wrote: post #193

novemp wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't answer my question. When you meet a stranger, how do you decide which words to use for them if not the way they're purposely choosing to present themselves?

Facial structure, body shape, voice. Humans have sufficient sexual dimorphism and are attuned to the differences enough to make this distinction correctly almost all of the time. This is how we can, in most cases, ascertain a person's sex regardless of how they're attired. It's also why the other commenter's view of women being "clothes, hair and makeup" is so absurd. A change of clothes, a haircut, and wiping off ma…

Then you have, in fact, mistakenly gendered trans people correctly. Just wanted to check, so thanks for letting me know.

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

#195

Post by ciiiicii » Tue, Mar 11, 2025, 8:59 AM UTC

novemp wrote: post #194

ciiiicii wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facial structure, body shape, voice. Humans have sufficient sexual dimorphism and are attuned to the differences enough to make this distinction correctly almost all of the time. This is how we can, in most cases, ascertain a person's sex regardless of how they're attired. It's also why the other commenter's view of women being "clothes, hair and makeup" is so absurd. A change of clothes, a haircut, and wiping off ma…

Then you have, in fact, mistakenly gendered trans people correctly. Just wanted to check, so thanks for letting me know.

A friend of mine has a cat, which she's had since a kitten. When the cat was given to her, she was told it is male. However, when she took the cat to the vet for vaccinations, she was informed that the cat is in fact female.

A mistaken assumption doesn't change the underlying reality.

If she hadn't taken the cat to the vet and hadn't otherwise realized that the cat is female, and later, the cat had become pregnant, then she wouldn't be exclaiming how amazing it is to see a male pregnancy. No, she would understand that the cat is female, because only female cats can be pregnant.