3 ms·

The responses in this thread are deeply disappointing. Every law we have, just like every piece of tech we have, needs to be considered not only in the context

The responses in this thread are deeply disappointing. Every law we have, just like every piece of tech we have, needs to be considered not only in the context of what words are on the paper but also how could it be deployed maliciously. How could this law be used to hurt or discriminate should be on someone's mind, just like we ask how could this API be misused. Seeing so many reactionary comments from folks who jump in to defend them because it aligns with their (in this case, right wing) political tribe is antithetical to the rational, deep thinking nature this place usually shows.

andrew_ 5y ago
I'm curious why you chose to reply throughout the comments here using a burner account, rather than your main. Are you at risk of retaliation? Genuinely curious.
- bendergender 5y ago
  I don't have a main. No risk of retaliation. Just a topic I'm informed on and it drives me up the wall to have people claim "reason" and "science" and then ignore the fact that science and reason widely agree with the idea that gender and sex aren't binary.
  - andrew_ 5y ago
    Use of "widely" suggests bias, so I'd recommend being careful with that use. There is definitely a concensus among many scientists of that hypothesis, but it's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't the presence of a significant number of scientists that argue the opposite. Objectivity is incredibly important in science, and it breeds credibility. This topic has social and ideological components, both of which cloud objectivity when speaking of the science. If you believe that science evolves, it's paramount that we treat hypotheses objectively rather than through the lens of absolutism
    - bendergender 5y ago
      I'm suggesting it's the majority opinion. Yes, there exist minority opinions as well, but generally we don't consider agreeing with the majority/consensus to be "ignoring the science".
      - andrew_ 5y ago
        That seems qualitative, rather than quantitative. Similar to how we use voter sample polling. Objectively speaking, I believe you'd have a hard time quantifying that assertion. Most people seems to take that position based on the loudest voices and personally held convictions rather than raw numbers. Quantifying the majority would require polling every single scientist that works in the field, which is likely not possible. I continue to consider the arguments of the many camps in that field, as the science is not settled and is constantly changing as we gain understanding of our own genetic makeup.
        bendergender 5y ago
        Take this diagram, https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png I doubt you'd find much support that it's wrong, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's considered the accepted standard.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
This is a very wholesome comment and it made me smile. It has the same vibe as someone noticing a hacker planting a backdoor in their companies code and giving then a gentle telling off because "that kind of security faux pas can have serious security implications!". I'm imagining a Mr Rogers type character saying it.

andrew_ 5y ago

I'm curious why you chose to reply throughout the comments here using a burner account, rather than your main. Are you at risk of retaliation? Genuinely curious.

bendergender 5y ago
I don't have a main. No risk of retaliation. Just a topic I'm informed on and it drives me up the wall to have people claim "reason" and "science" and then ignore the fact that science and reason widely agree with the idea that gender and sex aren't binary.
- andrew_ 5y ago
  Use of "widely" suggests bias, so I'd recommend being careful with that use. There is definitely a concensus among many scientists of that hypothesis, but it's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't the presence of a significant number of scientists that argue the opposite. Objectivity is incredibly important in science, and it breeds credibility. This topic has social and ideological components, both of which cloud objectivity when speaking of the science. If you believe that science evolves, it's paramount that we treat hypotheses objectively rather than through the lens of absolutism
  - bendergender 5y ago
    I'm suggesting it's the majority opinion. Yes, there exist minority opinions as well, but generally we don't consider agreeing with the majority/consensus to be "ignoring the science".
    - andrew_ 5y ago
      That seems qualitative, rather than quantitative. Similar to how we use voter sample polling. Objectively speaking, I believe you'd have a hard time quantifying that assertion. Most people seems to take that position based on the loudest voices and personally held convictions rather than raw numbers. Quantifying the majority would require polling every single scientist that works in the field, which is likely not possible. I continue to consider the arguments of the many camps in that field, as the science is not settled and is constantly changing as we gain understanding of our own genetic makeup.
      - bendergender 5y ago
        Take this diagram, https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png I doubt you'd find much support that it's wrong, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's considered the accepted standard.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

This is a very wholesome comment and it made me smile. It has the same vibe as someone noticing a hacker planting a backdoor in their companies code and giving then a gentle telling off because "that kind of security faux pas can have serious security implications!". I'm imagining a Mr Rogers type character saying it.