6 ms·
I think it's really hit or miss these days. It feels like the episodes like this that Latif hosts are interesting. But towards the end of last year they had a v
by stevenwoo 3y ago
I think it's really hit or miss these days. It feels like the episodes like this that Latif hosts are interesting. But towards the end of last year they had a very long less sciency run that was not very interesting, so much so that I stopped subscribing and listening, I mean not dumbed down, but actually unscientific, like the long series on immigration or broadcasting an anti-trans activist to talk about gender.
- LeapingLennie 3y agoI lost a bit of respect for them when they did an episode about the placenta and had an apology at the start because the episode contained the word "mother" rather than "pregnant person". I feel if you want to be a great science communicator you can't also insist on using postmodern language which will either confuse or put-off much of your audience.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoWhat's confusing about the term "pregnant person?" It seems very clear to me and has the benefit of being more inclusive.
- f6v 3y agoBecause the identity politics has no meaning when we talk about biological phenomenon like pregnancy. We know that only members of female sex can get pregnant. The word “mother” is defined as female parent in a dictionary. So there’s nothing wrong with the term mother in the first place.
- anaisbetts 3y ago[flagged]
- f6v 3y agoAs I said, when talking science it’s not “a preference”, rather just stating a fact. I’m not advocating for the usage of exactly the same terms in other settings. Also, there’s a lot of getting offended on behalf of others these days. That’s not something I’m willing to entertain.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoWhat science are you talking about? Trans fathers exist and are recognised medically. Whose behalf are you offended on now, your own? Do you have a womb or work as a midwife?
- tootie 3y agoRadiolab isn't peer-reviewed research. It's meant to educate and reach as many people as possible.
- lupusreal 3y agoUsing weird postmodern language that puts off most people to make a small number of people happy makes for ineffective communication; at least if you're aiming for a mass audience, which science communicators probably should be.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoWhat's your source that it puts most people off? And is it arguing in good faith to paint your opposition as "weird?"
- AlecSchueler 3y agoSo it's not confusing, you're actually just opposed to it on a political basis. The word mother is fine but it isn't inclusive for trans men who can also give birth. It's better for their mental health if we use gender affirming language. This is supported by research and the health services of many countries support it. Dictionaries change every year. I think it's better to consider the health and happiness of the people around you than to be slavish to dictionary definitions. Apologies for making this political point on Hacker News, I know it's discouraged. Just felt the need to call out the assertion that the language used was "confusing" as I know we're all smart enough here to understand simple words.
- fractallyte 3y agoIn mammals, only the biological female has a womb. That's not "political", it's reality. It sounds like you have an axe to grind...
- AlecSchueler 3y agoIn humans, gender is a social construct created on top of sex. It comes with a heap of socio-political norms. Some people feel that the gender assigned to them on the basis of their sex doesn't match the feeling they have about themselves or the way they would like to relate to society. For these people gender affirming language is very important to their quality of life, and their quality of life is directly tied to the well-being of their children. > It sounds like you have an axe to grind... Could you explain what you mean by this?
- Chris2048 3y ago> gender affirming language Do the words "male" and "female" affirm gender (as opposed to sex)? If there's some contradiction there, it seems an inherent property to being trans; since in this context "pregnant person" is suggested to be fine, why doesn't the same problem arise there too?
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
- AlecSchueler 3y agoConsider also that in the case of lesbian couples both parents will be mothers but only one of them will go through the process of giving birth, so it's useful to have language which can account for this distinction. Lesbian couples can become pregnant through co-parenting arrangements, sperm donation and sexual assault.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sangnoir 3y agoSex and gender are not the same thing. I just checked a couple of dictionaries for "mother" and got a 2:3 mix of variations of "parent who is female" and "parent who is a woman." You selected a definition that aligns with your worldview and make it sound like an unimpeachable, universal truth.
- f6v 3y agoIt’s not my world view, it’s the context of my area of interest, where it’s unlikely to be an issue. People can be whatever they want, have my blessing. It’s just the whole “pregnant person” vs “mother” debate started from the scientific podcast. Mixing identity politics and biological phenomena seems a bit excessive. Nobody is trying to offend anyone when they write a Nature paper and use the world “mother”. I don’t think that the attitude of getting triggered by words is a constructive one.
- antupis 3y agoRadiolab has the kinda same problem that Star Wars has. It is so influential that groundbreaking stuff has become an industrial standard so now the product kinda feels stale.
- jamincan 3y agoI've found the same, although I still remain subscribed. For me, their episode last year "Born This Way" was a low point of their reporting, but there have been a lot of others that I feel really miss the mark on scientific reporting, including the one on Zoozve which instead of spending time exploring the different ways multi-body orbital dynamics can produce interesting and non-intuitive effects, spent half the episode distracted by what was effectively "bro, wouldn't it be hilarious if we officially named it Zoozve? lol"
- stevenwoo 3y agoMaybe it's always been hit or miss but I remember the "old days" when I listened on the radio very engaged to the show while commuting and didn't have access to resources to instantly follow up and verify facts, and now I had to go after each episode to investigate further and ruin the experience myself or maybe I am over romanticizing a past that never existed. I think I wouldn't mind so much if the episodes were not so long no matter if they are good or bad in my judgement only, so the conundrum of having to screen each show didn't seem worth it for me. I agree with you on that low point, Lulu actively cheerleading the TedX speaker was distasteful at best, and it felt like Lulu was on every episode.
- tootie 3y agoI appreciate that they slightly pivoted from "science" to "anything interesting, obscure and true" which occasionally is just human drama. A show can't run for decades without adapting. I think the new format has had some real duds but I still enjoy it most of the time.