Interesting post

[jon-nyc]

A biologist who left academia presents a useful model to cut through the gobbledegook you hear from ideologically captured ‘biologists’.

[Copper]

So, when someone tells you they are non-binary.

Just tell them there is no such thing.

And move on.

[George K]

I may be wrong, but I don't think that any woman person I ever dated or married ever produced one spermatozoa.

(the purple part)

[LuFins Dad]

But Simón (e) Sun and Florence Ashley spent over 6 years in postgraduate studies to acquire their degrees, have spent years in clinical research, developed and proved their hypothesis, and published that hypothesis in a peer reviewed publication.

[jon-nyc]

And note Colon Wright didn’t just say “Bullshit”. He made an argument and a good one.

I think you missed to comedy of the post you referenced and assume it meant all published science is flawless

[Mik]

Very sensible.

[Mik]

@George-K said in Interesting post:

I may be wrong, but I don't think that any woman person I ever dated or married ever produced one spermatozoa.

(the purple part)

At least you hope not.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Interesting post:

And note Colon Wright didn’t just say “Bullshit”. He made an argument and a good one.

I think you … assume it meant all published science is flawless

You are fast and loose with the framings of opposing viewpoints for a staunch anti-strawmanitarian.

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in Interesting post:

I think you missed to comedy of the post you referenced and assume it meant all published science is flawless

Not at all, the meme is meant as a joke and an eyeroll at the internet rando that disputes the findings of the vaunted and elite scientist.

My personal view is that more and more of what is being published as science anymore really isn’t. And more and more often, internet randos are catching flaws in the method.

There are a lot of factors at play, but the biggest problem these days seems to be “trust” as opposed independent challenge or verification. A physician reads a study and says “wow! I wouldn’t have thought that!! But it’s peer reviewed and in a trusted journal, so it must be the truth.” And now an absurd concept becomes “scientific consensus”.

Examples of this are becoming more and more evident, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to try and make fun of the general person that’s willing to challenge one of these assertions.

[Axtremus]

@Copper said in Interesting post:

So, when someone tells you they are non-binary.

Just tell them there is no such thing.

Non-binary what? Non-binary gender is a bit more common, non-binary (biological) sex is very rare but indeed exists.

Using the definition for "sex" as defined in the x/tweet by "the type of gamete the individual can or would produce", there are also documented cases of human individuals being capable of producing both sperm and eggs, and this "non-binary" in sex even by the definition of the x/tweet. (See, for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987710001957 .)

[Horace]

@LuFins-Dad said in Interesting post:

@jon-nyc said in Interesting post:

I think you missed to comedy of the post you referenced and assume it meant all published science is flawless

Not at all, the meme is meant as a joke and an eyeroll at the internet rando that disputes the findings of the vaunted and elite scientist.

My personal view is that more and more of what is being published as science anymore really isn’t. And more and more often, internet randos are catching flaws in the method.

There are a lot of factors at play, but the biggest problem these days seems to be “trust” as opposed independent challenge or verification. A physician reads a study and says “wow! I wouldn’t have thought that!! But it’s peer reviewed and in a trusted journal, so it must be the truth.” And now an absurd concept becomes “scientific consensus”.

Examples of this are becoming more and more evident, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to try and make fun of the general person that’s willing to challenge one of these assertions.

Two things can't be true at once:

1. The "scientific consensus" regarding anything political, is overtly politicized. (Who can ever forget the timeless "racism is a public health concern which makes public gatherings during COVID ok"?)
2. People who view scientific consensus about political things with a ton of skepticism are sneer-worthy rubes

I guess one can pick and choose which to believe, if either. But anybody who believes both, gets my sneer.