4 ms·

I'm not poo-pooing that idea. The issue is the political (mis/dis/ab)use of language in all contexts. This is Nature journal, for goddakes, using the term "man"

I'm not poo-pooing that idea. The issue is the political (mis/dis/ab)use of language in all contexts. This is Nature journal, for goddakes, using the term "man" in a completely obvious biological convention to discuss chromsomal effects on cancer prognosis. They have no reason to latently apologize for that by acknowledging gender sex disparity in this piece.

kanbara 3y ago
not all men have xy-chromosomes and not all xy-chromosome bearing people are men. it’s really simple, tbh
- z3c0 3y ago
  I get what you're saying, but do you feel that you require that nuance to be acknowledged to understand what the article is getting at with the word "man"? I miss elegant, succinct language. George Carlin's point about "shellshock" vs "posttraumatic stress disorder" deserves mention here.
- vGPU 3y ago
  [flagged]
eozoon 3y ago
Think of it as men = "people with y chromosome" varible setting, or a "People with y chromosome (hereinafter referred to as men)" in a contract. The scientifically accurate way to describe the subject of the article is "people with y chromosome" but that is clunky to repeat so they want to designate a shorthand for it, while acknowledging that without proper definition the shorthand would be vague and not accurate description. I'd think defining your terms clearly is perfectly suitable for a scientific journal.
- NhanH 3y ago
  Defining unusual term is perfectly suitable for scientific journal. Men == people with y chromosome is something that has been used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing), and if you have to define it, you might as well define the term “define”. In the context of this paper, no one is gonna ask “what do you mean by men” if you remove that disclaimer. Sure, another paper that discuss some social issues with men might have to clarify whether it is the y-chromosome men or all men, but this isn’t the case here
  - haldujai 3y ago
    To be clear this isn't a research paper, it is a PR news summary designed to be accessible.
  - Affric 3y ago
    > used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing) The Middle English word was "mannen" and in old english "mann" meant roughly the same as we mean with "human" now, i.e. without respect to sex. I don't think the paragraph will be looked back on as anything except a sign of troubled political times (rather than communicating anything of use with regards to the information in the article) but what you've written is incorrect.
    - NhanH 3y ago
      I don’t mean the exact term “men”, just the generic word that is used to describe the concept of men.
      - Affric 3y ago
        Seems like you're redefining the term right now to better suit your argument.
  - mjg59 3y ago
    The correlation between Y chromosomes and sexual characteristics wasn't discovered until the early 20th century, so no. For the vast majority of human existence, the term "Men" has been used without reference to any underlying genetic status.
    - NhanH 3y ago
      Sure, we didn’t know the relation, but the y-chromosome didn’t spring to existence the moment we discovered it. The point is that whatever we wanted to use the word to describe was clear.
      - 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
haldujai 3y ago
It's not necessarily obvious that the usage refers to sex, gender issues are fair game for nature as well. This also isn't a publication in nature, it's a PR/news release designed to be accessible. The statement you are quoting first appears after a paragraph talking about lifestyle and not the first usage of the word which could create ambiguity. The article also does not make an explicit reference to "sex" or "gender" at any point. > The issue is the political (mis/dis/ab)use of language in all contexts. While there may be some truth to this statement, this article isn't a particularly striking example.
- shwaj 3y ago
  It is totally obvious that the usage refers to sex. The title is "How the Y chromosome makes some cancers more deadly for men", how much more obvious could it be? Pre-emptive edit: Given that this is a press release for a broader audience, rather than the primary research, I suppose there might actually be some readers who don't make the connection between "Y chromosome" and "sex".
  - haldujai 3y ago
    Ding ding ding. The research articles being cited both explicitly state "sex" and make no disclaimer. The statement reads as having been added after the fact due to potential ambiguity by not explicitly stating (gender|sex) once and/or misquoting by the audience intended to be reached ("Nature says gender = sex").
causality0 3y ago
It's religious. If you have an opportunity to signify that you're on the right team and don't take it, it casts suspicion on you. Maybe you're one of those dirty transphobes.
pryce 3y ago
The article literally shows in its second paragraph that "XY" entails male is not valid; it describes an extremely common occurrence of cells losing their Y chromosome. Outside of that example, for overall humans, when Y is present, and SRY isn't, advocates for chromosomal definitions fall flat. When SRY is present but not expressed, same thing. When SRY is expressed but receptors are insensitive to androgens, chromosomal definitions fall flat again. Aknowledging that there is a difference between "man" and the XY genotype, and being clear about the definitions the article will employ is not some concession to wokeness. It is a scientist being interested in their tools, their theories, and the limits of them, and an article in Nature is a perfectly appropriate place for this; just as much as we can and do to expect articles in nature to differentiate MSM and "gay man".
dragonwriter 3y ago
> This is Nature journal, for goddakes, using the term "man" in a completely obvious biological convention to discuss chromsomal effects on cancer prognosis. Its not an “obvious biological convention”, its a simplification that is seen as useful in the context of the article and it is very good to be clear about it, because in the biomedical world (not even considering gender identity issues) things like “a fertile woman with 46,XY karyotype and female phenotype” are actually observed and documented.

kanbara 3y ago

not all men have xy-chromosomes and not all xy-chromosome bearing people are men. it’s really simple, tbh

z3c0 3y ago
I get what you're saying, but do you feel that you require that nuance to be acknowledged to understand what the article is getting at with the word "man"? I miss elegant, succinct language. George Carlin's point about "shellshock" vs "posttraumatic stress disorder" deserves mention here.
vGPU 3y ago
[flagged]

eozoon 3y ago

Think of it as men = "people with y chromosome" varible setting, or a "People with y chromosome (hereinafter referred to as men)" in a contract. The scientifically accurate way to describe the subject of the article is "people with y chromosome" but that is clunky to repeat so they want to designate a shorthand for it, while acknowledging that without proper definition the shorthand would be vague and not accurate description. I'd think defining your terms clearly is perfectly suitable for a scientific journal.

NhanH 3y ago
Defining unusual term is perfectly suitable for scientific journal. Men == people with y chromosome is something that has been used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing), and if you have to define it, you might as well define the term “define”. In the context of this paper, no one is gonna ask “what do you mean by men” if you remove that disclaimer. Sure, another paper that discuss some social issues with men might have to clarify whether it is the y-chromosome men or all men, but this isn’t the case here
- haldujai 3y ago
  To be clear this isn't a research paper, it is a PR news summary designed to be accessible.
- Affric 3y ago
  > used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing) The Middle English word was "mannen" and in old english "mann" meant roughly the same as we mean with "human" now, i.e. without respect to sex. I don't think the paragraph will be looked back on as anything except a sign of troubled political times (rather than communicating anything of use with regards to the information in the article) but what you've written is incorrect.
  - NhanH 3y ago
    I don’t mean the exact term “men”, just the generic word that is used to describe the concept of men.
    - Affric 3y ago
      Seems like you're redefining the term right now to better suit your argument.
- mjg59 3y ago
  The correlation between Y chromosomes and sexual characteristics wasn't discovered until the early 20th century, so no. For the vast majority of human existence, the term "Men" has been used without reference to any underlying genetic status.
  - NhanH 3y ago
    Sure, we didn’t know the relation, but the y-chromosome didn’t spring to existence the moment we discovered it. The point is that whatever we wanted to use the word to describe was clear.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

haldujai 3y ago

It's not necessarily obvious that the usage refers to sex, gender issues are fair game for nature as well. This also isn't a publication in nature, it's a PR/news release designed to be accessible. The statement you are quoting first appears after a paragraph talking about lifestyle and not the first usage of the word which could create ambiguity. The article also does not make an explicit reference to "sex" or "gender" at any point. > The issue is the political (mis/dis/ab)use of language in all contexts. While there may be some truth to this statement, this article isn't a particularly striking example.

shwaj 3y ago
It is totally obvious that the usage refers to sex. The title is "How the Y chromosome makes some cancers more deadly for men", how much more obvious could it be? Pre-emptive edit: Given that this is a press release for a broader audience, rather than the primary research, I suppose there might actually be some readers who don't make the connection between "Y chromosome" and "sex".
- haldujai 3y ago
  Ding ding ding. The research articles being cited both explicitly state "sex" and make no disclaimer. The statement reads as having been added after the fact due to potential ambiguity by not explicitly stating (gender|sex) once and/or misquoting by the audience intended to be reached ("Nature says gender = sex").

causality0 3y ago

It's religious. If you have an opportunity to signify that you're on the right team and don't take it, it casts suspicion on you. Maybe you're one of those dirty transphobes.

pryce 3y ago

The article literally shows in its second paragraph that "XY" entails male is not valid; it describes an extremely common occurrence of cells losing their Y chromosome. Outside of that example, for overall humans, when Y is present, and SRY isn't, advocates for chromosomal definitions fall flat. When SRY is present but not expressed, same thing. When SRY is expressed but receptors are insensitive to androgens, chromosomal definitions fall flat again. Aknowledging that there is a difference between "man" and the XY genotype, and being clear about the definitions the article will employ is not some concession to wokeness. It is a scientist being interested in their tools, their theories, and the limits of them, and an article in Nature is a perfectly appropriate place for this; just as much as we can and do to expect articles in nature to differentiate MSM and "gay man".

dragonwriter 3y ago

> This is Nature journal, for goddakes, using the term "man" in a completely obvious biological convention to discuss chromsomal effects on cancer prognosis. Its not an “obvious biological convention”, its a simplification that is seen as useful in the context of the article and it is very good to be clear about it, because in the biomedical world (not even considering gender identity issues) things like “a fertile woman with 46,XY karyotype and female phenotype” are actually observed and documented.