3 ms·

This often happens: 1. X says that A did stupid thing B! 2. Y makes fun of X because obviously A didn't do stupid thing B. 3. Z (that's you) points out that

This often happens: 1. X says that A did stupid thing B! 2. Y makes fun of X because obviously A didn't do stupid thing B. 3. Z (that's you) points out that A did a thing B', that is like B, only not stupid, but technically X described it accurately if tendentiously. How do you deal with that? I don't think the human political brain is built for this level of indirection. But realistically this will now always be a fight between X's and Y's faction, because Z's position, though true, is too complicated to fit in a soundbite. I don't know how we get back from that. If it were truth vs lies it would be manageable, but the truth isn't even on the table because it's too big to fit into the argumentative paradigm.

watwut 2y ago
> 3. Z (that's you) points out that A did a thing B', that is like B, only not stupid, but technically X described it accurately if tendentiously. It was not "technically described accurately" tho. It was a lie and comment you are responding to makes that clear. So I think that response to that tactic would be to simply call it a lie rather then "technically accurate".
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  It's more accurate to say that "a paper studied gender in mice" than to say "no papers studied gender in mice". edit: Nevermind I retract this. I think you're right about this paper in particular. I guess it comes down to whether a study involving weird things with gender hormones is "about gender"? But it still seems like the core debate is ultimately not very much attached to actual reality. edit: It's like the "chemicals in the water that turn the freaking frogs gay" Alex Jones meme - if you thought "no that's nonsense there were no chemicals in the water" you would know less about Atrazine than Alex Jones did, despite Alex Jones also being wrong about what's going on with the frogs. The way in which you think that someone is wrong can also be wrong, even if that someone is in fact wrong.
  - pas 2y ago
    the paper used the word "gender" completely unnecessarily, no? those are sex hormones.
    - FeepingCreature 2y ago
      It'd be fascinating - if considerably evil - to see if we could induce dysphoria in mice.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - enragedcacti 2y ago
      No. The studies are attempting to understand the effects of a specific human medical intervention called "gender-affirming hormone therapy" using mice as an analog. GAHT is an umbrella of treatments that includes more than just cross-sex hormones (e.g. transwomen often take testosterone blockers in addition to estrogen) so its a very reasonable use of 'gender' in context.
      - pas 2y ago
        wait, I'm talking about the one linked upthread about asthma[1], and I think you are talking about this[2] one, right? [1] Gonadal hormones as mediators of sex and gender influences in asthma - https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10891526 https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10891526 [2] A Mouse Model to Test the Effects of Gender-affirming Hormone Therapy on HIV Vaccine-induced Immune Responses - https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10849830 https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10849830
        enragedcacti 2y ago
        my apologies, I mixed up which thread I was looking at. In that study I think gender is used because they are including transgender women as a population of interest, so similar to the other example gender is an aspect of what they are attempting to study, and sex hormones are the means by which it is being studied. > We expect that our studies would serve to develop potential sex- and gender-specific treatments and recommendations for dosage of therapeutic agents to treat and prevent asthma in cis and transgender women. It may also be that "sex and gender" is used because it isn't actually known what causes the differences observed in the population and that gendered socialization, treatment, or preferences could be contributing factors. This study for instance found that girls were less likely to see a doctor or get diagnosed with asthma even when controlling for symptom severity. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ppul.20373 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ppul.20373
tomrod 2y ago
> How do you deal with that? Historically, with a slap, either open handed or with a glove to induce a dual. But we live in more genial times where such egregious violence is deemed unavailable. > I don't think the human political brain is built for this level of indirection. Indeed. People using incompetent and mistaken assumptions doesn't improve on their desire to tear up the political foundations in the US.

watwut 2y ago

> 3. Z (that's you) points out that A did a thing B', that is like B, only not stupid, but technically X described it accurately if tendentiously. It was not "technically described accurately" tho. It was a lie and comment you are responding to makes that clear. So I think that response to that tactic would be to simply call it a lie rather then "technically accurate".

FeepingCreature 2y ago
It's more accurate to say that "a paper studied gender in mice" than to say "no papers studied gender in mice". edit: Nevermind I retract this. I think you're right about this paper in particular. I guess it comes down to whether a study involving weird things with gender hormones is "about gender"? But it still seems like the core debate is ultimately not very much attached to actual reality. edit: It's like the "chemicals in the water that turn the freaking frogs gay" Alex Jones meme - if you thought "no that's nonsense there were no chemicals in the water" you would know less about Atrazine than Alex Jones did, despite Alex Jones also being wrong about what's going on with the frogs. The way in which you think that someone is wrong can also be wrong, even if that someone is in fact wrong.
- pas 2y ago
  the paper used the word "gender" completely unnecessarily, no? those are sex hormones.
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    It'd be fascinating - if considerably evil - to see if we could induce dysphoria in mice.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - enragedcacti 2y ago
    No. The studies are attempting to understand the effects of a specific human medical intervention called "gender-affirming hormone therapy" using mice as an analog. GAHT is an umbrella of treatments that includes more than just cross-sex hormones (e.g. transwomen often take testosterone blockers in addition to estrogen) so its a very reasonable use of 'gender' in context.
    - pas 2y ago
      wait, I'm talking about the one linked upthread about asthma[1], and I think you are talking about this[2] one, right? [1] Gonadal hormones as mediators of sex and gender influences in asthma - https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10891526 https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10891526 [2] A Mouse Model to Test the Effects of Gender-affirming Hormone Therapy on HIV Vaccine-induced Immune Responses - https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10849830 https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10849830
      - enragedcacti 2y ago
        my apologies, I mixed up which thread I was looking at. In that study I think gender is used because they are including transgender women as a population of interest, so similar to the other example gender is an aspect of what they are attempting to study, and sex hormones are the means by which it is being studied. > We expect that our studies would serve to develop potential sex- and gender-specific treatments and recommendations for dosage of therapeutic agents to treat and prevent asthma in cis and transgender women. It may also be that "sex and gender" is used because it isn't actually known what causes the differences observed in the population and that gendered socialization, treatment, or preferences could be contributing factors. This study for instance found that girls were less likely to see a doctor or get diagnosed with asthma even when controlling for symptom severity. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ppul.20373 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ppul.20373

tomrod 2y ago

> How do you deal with that? Historically, with a slap, either open handed or with a glove to induce a dual. But we live in more genial times where such egregious violence is deemed unavailable. > I don't think the human political brain is built for this level of indirection. Indeed. People using incompetent and mistaken assumptions doesn't improve on their desire to tear up the political foundations in the US.