5 ms·

>> sex assigned at birth... female sex assigned at birth > As an aside - in a scientific article, this is insane language to use and really calls into questi

>> sex assigned at birth... female sex assigned at birth > As an aside - in a scientific article, this is insane language to use and really calls into question the assumptions and conclusions. i'm not really familiar with scientific writing, but why would that be insane language to use? what would be better?

Alupis 3y ago
It's not a scientific statement, it's a political statement. It doesn't matter if you agree with that political statement or not - it simply has no business being in a scientific report. Injecting political ideology into what is supposed to be factual findings is wrong. In scientific writing, such as studies like this - just the facts please. Anything else opens questions about motivations, conclusions, etc.
- MauranKilom 3y ago
  > In scientific writing, such as studies like this - just the facts please. But those are just very precise facts? Clarifying that they refer to "female sex assigned at birth" is strictly less ambiguous than "female".
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Nobody stood around and just made up a sex for a newborn soviet job-assignment style, making the language "assigned at birth" inaccurate from a scientific standpoint. From a scientific standpoint, Female and Male are clearly defined. I will not engage any further in a political debate about this subject here. My point was political ideology statements should not be in scientific writing because they are political, the language changes with the political climate, and the language is imprecise. People reading scientific writings 100 years in the future should not have to wonder what political climate the paper was written in. Scientific writing should not be a product of it's date and political climate.
    - MauranKilom 3y ago
      > making the language "assigned at birth" inaccurate from a scientific standpoint That's a strawman argument about semantics ("assign" in English does not always mean "soviet-style"), which I'm not going to bother engaging with. > Scientific writing should not be a product of it's date and political climate. By virtue of using language, it virtually always is. For example, the common/acceptable way of referring to ethnicities changed over time. It's virtually impossible in anything involving humans to have language (and therefore scientific language) not evolve over time. > From a scientific standpoint, Female and Male are clearly defined. And how do you distinguish the "scientific" female and male from the "colloquial" female and male, without leaving it ambiguous according to the "political background" of the reader? Or rather, what if, in a purely hypothetical future English, "female" and "male" refer unambiguously to the gender people identify as? It seems like you would like scientific writing to conform specifically (and only) to what you consider acceptable language _right now_, and are not actually particularly interested in accessibility to future readers.
    - zillolo 3y ago
      Male and female are clearly defined (not really, but let's assume for the arguments sake). Intersex people exist, and they are impossible to identify without them telling you about it. So these people are really "assigned" a gender at birth. They might not be a huge amount of the population, but they exist. So why not use "assigned at birth"? It includes them and doesn't hurt anyone at all. I'd ask you to reconsider, whether the authors made a political statement, or whether you made this a political statement by yourself. Because I read it and not a single political thought crossed my mind...
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    Alupis is simply trying to help out Science in an objective and apolitical way by pointing out that some phrases can rile people up into hooting and hollering. Phrases like “assigned female at birth” can, to use an empirical term, “whip one up into a real doozy of a tizzy” that can only be quelled by posting. Anything that might trigger Poster’s Rage is definitionally Not Science because scientific words do not make people “get all flustered”
    - Alupis 3y ago
      The very fact that you are this "riled up" about a plainly obvious statement such as I have made here only serves to validate my position. Take a look at your statements and tell me you are arguing from a scientific standpoint and not one from your own personal political ideology. You cannot, in good faith, make this claim.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- jrflowers 3y ago
  > It's not a scientific statement, it's a political statement. This is a good point. Once a scientific term becomes politicized by its usage outside of clinical settings, it ceases to be scientific. For example, weight has become politicized so when you read something like “7lb 5oz infant” in a study you can just throw the whole thing in the trash because the researcher has clearly gone Woke.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    In scientific writing Mass is usually referenced instead of Weight, because weight changes depending where you are, even on the same planet (being a measurement of gravitational force). You are making my point even stronger... and weight being political is news to me.
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      > Mass is usually referenced instead of Weight You’re telling me buddy! People actually think that doctors weigh babies and write down the numbers they see on the scale when everybody really smart knows they measure infant Mass by measuring their liquid displacement and multiplying it by the density of the standardized homogenous baby slurry provided by NIST. It’s like dang John Stewart in every delivery theater I tell you what
      - Alupis 3y ago
        You are attempting to be funny and dismantle my argument by locating holes. However, unfortunately for you, these misguided political jabs only strengthen my argument. A birth certificate is not a scientific writing. A study of the affects of MDMA on PTSD is.
        jrflowers 3y ago
        > A birth certificate is not a scientific writing. A study of the affects of MDMA on PTSD is. I’ll cheers to that! It is important that we do not include words like “assigned female at birth” in any scientific writing because

Alupis 3y ago

It's not a scientific statement, it's a political statement. It doesn't matter if you agree with that political statement or not - it simply has no business being in a scientific report. Injecting political ideology into what is supposed to be factual findings is wrong. In scientific writing, such as studies like this - just the facts please. Anything else opens questions about motivations, conclusions, etc.

MauranKilom 3y ago
> In scientific writing, such as studies like this - just the facts please. But those are just very precise facts? Clarifying that they refer to "female sex assigned at birth" is strictly less ambiguous than "female".
- Alupis 3y ago
  Nobody stood around and just made up a sex for a newborn soviet job-assignment style, making the language "assigned at birth" inaccurate from a scientific standpoint. From a scientific standpoint, Female and Male are clearly defined. I will not engage any further in a political debate about this subject here. My point was political ideology statements should not be in scientific writing because they are political, the language changes with the political climate, and the language is imprecise. People reading scientific writings 100 years in the future should not have to wonder what political climate the paper was written in. Scientific writing should not be a product of it's date and political climate.
  - MauranKilom 3y ago
    > making the language "assigned at birth" inaccurate from a scientific standpoint That's a strawman argument about semantics ("assign" in English does not always mean "soviet-style"), which I'm not going to bother engaging with. > Scientific writing should not be a product of it's date and political climate. By virtue of using language, it virtually always is. For example, the common/acceptable way of referring to ethnicities changed over time. It's virtually impossible in anything involving humans to have language (and therefore scientific language) not evolve over time. > From a scientific standpoint, Female and Male are clearly defined. And how do you distinguish the "scientific" female and male from the "colloquial" female and male, without leaving it ambiguous according to the "political background" of the reader? Or rather, what if, in a purely hypothetical future English, "female" and "male" refer unambiguously to the gender people identify as? It seems like you would like scientific writing to conform specifically (and only) to what you consider acceptable language _right now_, and are not actually particularly interested in accessibility to future readers.
  - zillolo 3y ago
    Male and female are clearly defined (not really, but let's assume for the arguments sake). Intersex people exist, and they are impossible to identify without them telling you about it. So these people are really "assigned" a gender at birth. They might not be a huge amount of the population, but they exist. So why not use "assigned at birth"? It includes them and doesn't hurt anyone at all. I'd ask you to reconsider, whether the authors made a political statement, or whether you made this a political statement by yourself. Because I read it and not a single political thought crossed my mind...
- jrflowers 3y ago
  Alupis is simply trying to help out Science in an objective and apolitical way by pointing out that some phrases can rile people up into hooting and hollering. Phrases like “assigned female at birth” can, to use an empirical term, “whip one up into a real doozy of a tizzy” that can only be quelled by posting. Anything that might trigger Poster’s Rage is definitionally Not Science because scientific words do not make people “get all flustered”
  - Alupis 3y ago
    The very fact that you are this "riled up" about a plainly obvious statement such as I have made here only serves to validate my position. Take a look at your statements and tell me you are arguing from a scientific standpoint and not one from your own personal political ideology. You cannot, in good faith, make this claim.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
jrflowers 3y ago
> It's not a scientific statement, it's a political statement. This is a good point. Once a scientific term becomes politicized by its usage outside of clinical settings, it ceases to be scientific. For example, weight has become politicized so when you read something like “7lb 5oz infant” in a study you can just throw the whole thing in the trash because the researcher has clearly gone Woke.
- Alupis 3y ago
  In scientific writing Mass is usually referenced instead of Weight, because weight changes depending where you are, even on the same planet (being a measurement of gravitational force). You are making my point even stronger... and weight being political is news to me.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    > Mass is usually referenced instead of Weight You’re telling me buddy! People actually think that doctors weigh babies and write down the numbers they see on the scale when everybody really smart knows they measure infant Mass by measuring their liquid displacement and multiplying it by the density of the standardized homogenous baby slurry provided by NIST. It’s like dang John Stewart in every delivery theater I tell you what
    - Alupis 3y ago
      You are attempting to be funny and dismantle my argument by locating holes. However, unfortunately for you, these misguided political jabs only strengthen my argument. A birth certificate is not a scientific writing. A study of the affects of MDMA on PTSD is.
      - jrflowers 3y ago
        > A birth certificate is not a scientific writing. A study of the affects of MDMA on PTSD is. I’ll cheers to that! It is important that we do not include words like “assigned female at birth” in any scientific writing because