Don’t give a shit what’s in your pants. I just care if we have a data point that depends on people being born as X and they have condition Y. If you change your gender, you change X and that may fuck with the data.
So pulling an example out of my ass: if you are born male, have a condition for say colon cancer. You change your gender to be female. Your doctor does a colonoscopy and finds the cancer after the gender swap (sorry if not the best term). You’re now a female with colon cancer, but what if it was actually due to some genetic conditions from the male side? Changing it to female fucks with the data.
So the one percent of people who are trans are going to fuck up medical statistics? That’s your pathetic excuse for these comments? The most generous one can possibly be with you here is to say that’s a huge stretch. It’s certainly a weird thing to focus on.
Ironic that you’re defending a transphobe from that lemmy instance.
Yes, they are a transphobe. I read a dozen of their comments before making that conclusion. They are hiding behind a lie, it doesn’t fool me. I suspect you’re seeing what you want to see because you too are obsessed with strangers birth genitals
I’d argue it simply makes them a bad data scientist. Biology cares not for the categories we create to explain it, and the purpose of categorization is to make sense of what’s already in the world, not to prescribe how it should be. Exceptions exist everywhere, not just in trans people. If your modeling of the data is inaccurate because you only have a binary categorization of sex, that categorization is to blame, not the people who the data represents.
So ultimately, in medical studies, perhaps it’s important to note how you categorized your subjects’ sex, how that relates to the mechanisms of what you’re studying, and perhaps studying trans people’s data further can provide more insights e.g. how hormones affect a condition. Science and data is reliant on the narratives we use to inspect and describe it, and the less of our societal baggage we impose on that process, the better.
I’m saying they should be accurately recorded so they can be accounted for. If you can’t see how this is a big deal, I can’t help you.
I honestly don’t care what you identify as. Be a fucking apache attack helicopter. I don’t give a shit. I want people to be able data from specific birthd and have them be able to accurately correlate the data. I don’t want the data to be fucked up because someone decided that they are a different gender.
People lying on surveys and to doctors about a million other things has impacted medical data 37648383773838273738% more than this ever possibly could. I suppose you’re trying to do something about those people right? Hmm weird how that never once occurred to you. It’s almost like you’re looking for a justification for spreading subtle hatred.
For not caring about what somebody identifies as you sure seem to care quite a bit. Your reasoning seems to be a bit obtuse. It sounds like concern trolling more than anything.
Do you think that they don’t have your whole medical history? Like if they’re looking for a Y-chromosome associated cancer they’ll just pull up my surgical and prescription history and see “oh yeah that’s related” or they’ll order a karyotyping to ensure they’re correct because XY-AFAB people and XX-AMAB people aren’t *that^ rare of an intersex condition, especially as chimerism is downright common.
However what’s much more common is hormonally associated phenomena that aren’t extremely well known to be such. The most famous example is that after not very long on hormones trans people’s heart attack symptoms change to our hormonal sex’s. For a long time it was so rarely known amongst emergency room professionals that trans people were more likely to die of a heart attack.
But beyond this, that’s medical professionals and it’s a complicated discussion that’s currently happening in both the medical and trans communities by those who are affected most by it and those who are experts on these topics. What was clearly meant by this post was not that, but rather that people should feel 100% certain as to what is between the legs of every acquaintance and stranger they meet and that the government needs to know what each and every individual’s birth sex is.
So what you’re saying is you don’t think people should be able to fully choose what they identify as because it introduces uncertainty in data when you’d rather have two hard categories? Hate to break it to you, but that’s not how science nor statistics work, especially not biology or biostatistics. There are no hard lines anywhere in nature, give me any seemingly binary categorisation in a biological or ecological system and I guarantee there will be exceptions that don’t fit into either category, fit between them, fit both simultaneously, etc. The way science deals with this is to simply acknowledge this fact and embrace it. You will never hear a proper scientist lamenting that there are too many exceptions, because the exceptions are literally what they study and give far more insights into the world than if they had stuck to their hard categories.
What you’re basically saying is that science should dictate how the world works when that’s the antithesis of science. How the world works dictate science, it’s literally a tool for describing the world. Science does not tell you what to do, it tells you what it observes, full stop.
You and another commenter both mentioned the scenario of a person of a certain gender at birth identifying as transgender, getting diagnosed with some condition, and therefore being “miscategorized” as another gender with the condition. Okay, yes that would happen, but I wouldn’t call it miscategorization because the very concept of gender and biosex is not a hard line of one or the other. In fact, if the researchers of that hypothetical study cared about accuracy of the categorizations, they wouldn’t have had the participants choose between only two categories. For example, they could have had five: cis-male, cis-female, trans-male, trans-female, and other, but of course even those are simplifications of the continuous spectrum of gender. I don’t know of a single transgender person that would choose the cis option if also given the trans option on a medical study like this, I’m sure they exist, but so few that they would never be statically significant in a properly executed study and probably a lot fewer than the number of people who misclick and select a gender they didn’t mean to with realising. So you getting mad about trans people “fucking up” medical data is either a total strawman, or you actually meant to get mad about improper study designs that produce low quality data by not allowing people to accurately report information about themselves.
And if you try to argue that there are “only” two categories and the others are just “lost” or “confused” or something, then you’ll also have to answer for how nonbinary sex genes themselves should be dealt with. Not every person’s chromosomes are XX or XY, some have XXX, XYY, XXYY, etc, or even more complex would be if the X and Y chromosome undergoes meiosis a little differently than normal during sperm formation, resulting in, for example, an X chromosome that contains the male SRY gene or a Y chromosome that lacks that gene or an X or Y chromosome that lack and/or have added certain sex defining genes in general, sometimes causing the individual to have both sets of reproductive organs, or in even rarer circumstances, no reproductive organs at all. Some people are born with what appears as one biosex organ, only for it to change and/or another one to crop up during puberty as the sex organs develop, other have an underdeveloped version of the other set of sex organs completely inside their bodies which go unnoticed their whole lives. What biosex should those people be categorised into? You also mention HRT as if people undergoing HRT are the exact same biologically as they were before. For example, what if the hormones or other gender affirming procedures are what caused or predisposed the condition in question which they then report as being their gender identity and having that condition? In that case did they get accurately categorised in your eyes?
Finally, you know the last part of those science reports you had to write in school, the discussion section? That is another way science accounts for these exceptions by, you know, discussing them, instead of just pretending they don’t exist. For example, in this study the researchers would definitely comment on the existence of transgender identity and that the genders people report may not match their sex assigned at birth, because, once again, science is about describing the world with all its beautiful nuance and complexity, it does not and must not ignore those complexities.
As a metaphor for this scenario, what you are basically saying is that a rainbow has only seven colours and no more, when in reality a rainbow is a continuous spectrum of every visible wavelength and has an uncountably infinite number of colours. You can always find a wavelength that’s between the two you had previously found, just like how you can always find a nonbinary exception to the two most common genders. Or another metaphor, imagine if James Chadwick discovers the neutron and brings his findings to you, and you say “ridiculous! Everyone knows there are only two subatomic particles, the positive proton and the negative electron! How can you have a particle with no charge? All subatomic particles have charge!”
So adjust the data. That’s what science is. It’s always changing as we learn more about ourselves and our universe. Look, I’m really sorry that statistical conclusions drawn from inaccurate data aren’t helpful, but that’s true whether trans people exist or not.
It’s unimportant for literally everyone but them until puberty
And from that point on its their and their doctors problem
Removed by mod
Science doesn’t need those data points though, as stated preciously, it’s not useful to anyone
Simple as
deleted by creator
Then it isn’t helpful data to be collecting.
That data still has meaning.
How you feel about your gender, and your gender at birth are two very different data points.
Hey, I’ve got a novel idea. Stay out of other people’s pants. Ez PZ.
Don’t give a shit what’s in your pants. I just care if we have a data point that depends on people being born as X and they have condition Y. If you change your gender, you change X and that may fuck with the data.
So pulling an example out of my ass: if you are born male, have a condition for say colon cancer. You change your gender to be female. Your doctor does a colonoscopy and finds the cancer after the gender swap (sorry if not the best term). You’re now a female with colon cancer, but what if it was actually due to some genetic conditions from the male side? Changing it to female fucks with the data.
So the one percent of people who are trans are going to fuck up medical statistics? That’s your pathetic excuse for these comments? The most generous one can possibly be with you here is to say that’s a huge stretch. It’s certainly a weird thing to focus on.
Removed by mod
Ironic that you’re defending a transphobe from that lemmy instance.
Yes, they are a transphobe. I read a dozen of their comments before making that conclusion. They are hiding behind a lie, it doesn’t fool me. I suspect you’re seeing what you want to see because you too are obsessed with strangers birth genitals
Not anymore they’re not.
Did they get the ban hammer? ❤️
I’d argue it simply makes them a bad data scientist. Biology cares not for the categories we create to explain it, and the purpose of categorization is to make sense of what’s already in the world, not to prescribe how it should be. Exceptions exist everywhere, not just in trans people. If your modeling of the data is inaccurate because you only have a binary categorization of sex, that categorization is to blame, not the people who the data represents.
So ultimately, in medical studies, perhaps it’s important to note how you categorized your subjects’ sex, how that relates to the mechanisms of what you’re studying, and perhaps studying trans people’s data further can provide more insights e.g. how hormones affect a condition. Science and data is reliant on the narratives we use to inspect and describe it, and the less of our societal baggage we impose on that process, the better.
I’m saying they should be accurately recorded so they can be accounted for. If you can’t see how this is a big deal, I can’t help you.
I honestly don’t care what you identify as. Be a fucking apache attack helicopter. I don’t give a shit. I want people to be able data from specific birthd and have them be able to accurately correlate the data. I don’t want the data to be fucked up because someone decided that they are a different gender.
People lying on surveys and to doctors about a million other things has impacted medical data 37648383773838273738% more than this ever possibly could. I suppose you’re trying to do something about those people right? Hmm weird how that never once occurred to you. It’s almost like you’re looking for a justification for spreading subtle hatred.
For not caring about what somebody identifies as you sure seem to care quite a bit. Your reasoning seems to be a bit obtuse. It sounds like concern trolling more than anything.
deleted by creator
Do you think that they don’t have your whole medical history? Like if they’re looking for a Y-chromosome associated cancer they’ll just pull up my surgical and prescription history and see “oh yeah that’s related” or they’ll order a karyotyping to ensure they’re correct because XY-AFAB people and XX-AMAB people aren’t *that^ rare of an intersex condition, especially as chimerism is downright common.
However what’s much more common is hormonally associated phenomena that aren’t extremely well known to be such. The most famous example is that after not very long on hormones trans people’s heart attack symptoms change to our hormonal sex’s. For a long time it was so rarely known amongst emergency room professionals that trans people were more likely to die of a heart attack.
But beyond this, that’s medical professionals and it’s a complicated discussion that’s currently happening in both the medical and trans communities by those who are affected most by it and those who are experts on these topics. What was clearly meant by this post was not that, but rather that people should feel 100% certain as to what is between the legs of every acquaintance and stranger they meet and that the government needs to know what each and every individual’s birth sex is.
So what you’re saying is you don’t think people should be able to fully choose what they identify as because it introduces uncertainty in data when you’d rather have two hard categories? Hate to break it to you, but that’s not how science nor statistics work, especially not biology or biostatistics. There are no hard lines anywhere in nature, give me any seemingly binary categorisation in a biological or ecological system and I guarantee there will be exceptions that don’t fit into either category, fit between them, fit both simultaneously, etc. The way science deals with this is to simply acknowledge this fact and embrace it. You will never hear a proper scientist lamenting that there are too many exceptions, because the exceptions are literally what they study and give far more insights into the world than if they had stuck to their hard categories.
What you’re basically saying is that science should dictate how the world works when that’s the antithesis of science. How the world works dictate science, it’s literally a tool for describing the world. Science does not tell you what to do, it tells you what it observes, full stop.
You and another commenter both mentioned the scenario of a person of a certain gender at birth identifying as transgender, getting diagnosed with some condition, and therefore being “miscategorized” as another gender with the condition. Okay, yes that would happen, but I wouldn’t call it miscategorization because the very concept of gender and biosex is not a hard line of one or the other. In fact, if the researchers of that hypothetical study cared about accuracy of the categorizations, they wouldn’t have had the participants choose between only two categories. For example, they could have had five: cis-male, cis-female, trans-male, trans-female, and other, but of course even those are simplifications of the continuous spectrum of gender. I don’t know of a single transgender person that would choose the cis option if also given the trans option on a medical study like this, I’m sure they exist, but so few that they would never be statically significant in a properly executed study and probably a lot fewer than the number of people who misclick and select a gender they didn’t mean to with realising. So you getting mad about trans people “fucking up” medical data is either a total strawman, or you actually meant to get mad about improper study designs that produce low quality data by not allowing people to accurately report information about themselves.
And if you try to argue that there are “only” two categories and the others are just “lost” or “confused” or something, then you’ll also have to answer for how nonbinary sex genes themselves should be dealt with. Not every person’s chromosomes are XX or XY, some have XXX, XYY, XXYY, etc, or even more complex would be if the X and Y chromosome undergoes meiosis a little differently than normal during sperm formation, resulting in, for example, an X chromosome that contains the male SRY gene or a Y chromosome that lacks that gene or an X or Y chromosome that lack and/or have added certain sex defining genes in general, sometimes causing the individual to have both sets of reproductive organs, or in even rarer circumstances, no reproductive organs at all. Some people are born with what appears as one biosex organ, only for it to change and/or another one to crop up during puberty as the sex organs develop, other have an underdeveloped version of the other set of sex organs completely inside their bodies which go unnoticed their whole lives. What biosex should those people be categorised into? You also mention HRT as if people undergoing HRT are the exact same biologically as they were before. For example, what if the hormones or other gender affirming procedures are what caused or predisposed the condition in question which they then report as being their gender identity and having that condition? In that case did they get accurately categorised in your eyes?
Finally, you know the last part of those science reports you had to write in school, the discussion section? That is another way science accounts for these exceptions by, you know, discussing them, instead of just pretending they don’t exist. For example, in this study the researchers would definitely comment on the existence of transgender identity and that the genders people report may not match their sex assigned at birth, because, once again, science is about describing the world with all its beautiful nuance and complexity, it does not and must not ignore those complexities.
As a metaphor for this scenario, what you are basically saying is that a rainbow has only seven colours and no more, when in reality a rainbow is a continuous spectrum of every visible wavelength and has an uncountably infinite number of colours. You can always find a wavelength that’s between the two you had previously found, just like how you can always find a nonbinary exception to the two most common genders. Or another metaphor, imagine if James Chadwick discovers the neutron and brings his findings to you, and you say “ridiculous! Everyone knows there are only two subatomic particles, the positive proton and the negative electron! How can you have a particle with no charge? All subatomic particles have charge!”
So adjust the data. That’s what science is. It’s always changing as we learn more about ourselves and our universe. Look, I’m really sorry that statistical conclusions drawn from inaccurate data aren’t helpful, but that’s true whether trans people exist or not.
Adjust the data? How?
You lose that data point. You can’t just magically fix it. That’s the whole point.