4 ms·

You said “LBQT focussed articles” when every example in the grandparent comment was about women’s health. So, who benefits from the articles? Well, women for st

You said “LBQT focussed articles” when every example in the grandparent comment was about women’s health. So, who benefits from the articles? Well, women for starters.

gitaarik 2y ago
Yeah bit they werd removed because they were supposedly written in a LBQT focused way?
- crowselect 2y ago
  1. If the goal is to remove LGBTQ content, or stuff related to diversity, they’re using a rocket launcher not a scalpel - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documents-that-werent-about-dei-were-purged-from-osha-websites/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documen... 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people?
  - throw16180339 2y ago
    > 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people? It's an explicit goal of Project 2025 to take rights away from queer people.
    - crowselect 2y ago
      Project 2025? You mean that thing that they’d never heard of?
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    Ok, but how many articles that were about DEI were removed compared to that weren't? If they do a big amount of work with a small error margin that wouldn't be so dramatic. Also, 7.6% seems very high, what is this number based on, and in which cases does it really matter what your gender is? In what cases does the information need to take your gender into account, unless it's about specific organs, which are either masculine or feminine?
    - crowselect 2y ago
      I’d say you’re looking at this wrong - the harm of a “dei” article staying up is nonexistent. The harm of an article about women’s health or workplace safety being taken down because it includes the word “gender” or “diverse” has the potential to cost people their lives. 7.6% is based on the google results for “percentage americans lgbtq” - if you want to know more about that number you can find more on said search engine. Is there a number you have in mind where the gov no longer has a responsibility to serve them? > In what cases does the information need to take your gender into account, unless it's about specific organs, which are either masculine or feminine? You’re confusing gender and sex. Gender is a description of social and cultural traits - sex is the one relating to organs and chromosomes. But either way, taking down pages about women’s health because of a law that claims to have the goal of protecting women is just dumb.
      - gitaarik 2y ago
        But it's maybe also dumb to alter health articles to DEI when it's about scientific sex and not imaginary genders. In what case does a scientific health article need to take someone's gender preference into account?
        crowselect 2y ago
        When trying to communicate information to people, it’s best to meet them where they’re at. If i start calling you she when you would like to be called he or they, will you hear what i am saying or will you get hung up on being misgendered? And btw, all genders are imaginary. Like many things, gender is made up.
        gitaarik 2y ago
        Yeah, well in personal circumstances , and you can take someones preferred pronoun into account. But why would you be offended in general texts where the gender doesn't even matter.
        2y ago

You said “LBQT focussed articles” when every example in the grandparent comment was about women’s health. So, who benefits from the articles? Well, women for starters.

gitaarik 2y ago

Yeah bit they werd removed because they were supposedly written in a LBQT focused way?

crowselect 2y ago
1. If the goal is to remove LGBTQ content, or stuff related to diversity, they’re using a rocket launcher not a scalpel - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documents-that-werent-about-dei-were-purged-from-osha-websites/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documen... 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people?
- throw16180339 2y ago
  > 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people? It's an explicit goal of Project 2025 to take rights away from queer people.
  - crowselect 2y ago
    Project 2025? You mean that thing that they’d never heard of?
- gitaarik 2y ago
  Ok, but how many articles that were about DEI were removed compared to that weren't? If they do a big amount of work with a small error margin that wouldn't be so dramatic. Also, 7.6% seems very high, what is this number based on, and in which cases does it really matter what your gender is? In what cases does the information need to take your gender into account, unless it's about specific organs, which are either masculine or feminine?
  - crowselect 2y ago
    I’d say you’re looking at this wrong - the harm of a “dei” article staying up is nonexistent. The harm of an article about women’s health or workplace safety being taken down because it includes the word “gender” or “diverse” has the potential to cost people their lives. 7.6% is based on the google results for “percentage americans lgbtq” - if you want to know more about that number you can find more on said search engine. Is there a number you have in mind where the gov no longer has a responsibility to serve them? > In what cases does the information need to take your gender into account, unless it's about specific organs, which are either masculine or feminine? You’re confusing gender and sex. Gender is a description of social and cultural traits - sex is the one relating to organs and chromosomes. But either way, taking down pages about women’s health because of a law that claims to have the goal of protecting women is just dumb.
    - gitaarik 2y ago
      But it's maybe also dumb to alter health articles to DEI when it's about scientific sex and not imaginary genders. In what case does a scientific health article need to take someone's gender preference into account?
      - crowselect 2y ago
        When trying to communicate information to people, it’s best to meet them where they’re at. If i start calling you she when you would like to be called he or they, will you hear what i am saying or will you get hung up on being misgendered? And btw, all genders are imaginary. Like many things, gender is made up.
        gitaarik 2y ago
        Yeah, well in personal circumstances , and you can take someones preferred pronoun into account. But why would you be offended in general texts where the gender doesn't even matter.
        2y ago