Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Sherkeu]

Why do you think CNN can say men, not penis havers?

Report them. How insensitive to to ladies who have a penis!!
Do their lady erections not count?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Medical professionals themselves are immune because they need to speak in science to do their jobs. There is NO clinical trial that is 'woke' in how it seeks out female participants.
But it seems that they are to speak differently to the public at large so that there will be 2 vocabularies in play so that no one need be de-legitimized of their chosen gender/sex identity.

It's a direct quote from The American Cancer Society's official guidelines:

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation ).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why do you think CNN can say men, not penis havers?View attachment 42768

CNN is a private institution that can use whatever language they want.

 

[Manger Douse]

CNN is a private institution that can use whatever language they want.

The study quoted says men https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2765654?resultClick=1

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The study quoted says men https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2765654?resultClick=1

That would explain why, in both cases, CNN allowed the scientists to take the lead in what language they used.

That said, you do appear to have linked to a different paper entirely.

 

[Manger Douse]

That would explain why, in both cases, CNN allowed the scientists to take the lead in what language they used.

That said, you do appear to have linked to a different paper entirely.

Precise language doesn't seem all that important then

The study was directly linked from this CNN article:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/health/coronavirus-semen-china-health/index.html

 

[Manger Douse]

Also, the American Cancer Society who the cervix study we're discussing came from seem to think only men can get prostate cancer:

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Precise language doesn't seem all that important then

Firstly, did you read the study? It was a study of, specifically, 38 cisgender men. What is imprecise about using the word "men" in that context?

Secondly, I'm not the person who is mocking medical professionals for the terminology they use. I'm the one who's finding it vaguely amusing that people who no doubt consider themselves generally pro-science are going down the "hur-de-hur, look at these woke libtards" route when the science in question uses precise and accurate language that doesn't match their particular biased bugbear of choice.

The study was directly linked from this CNN article:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/health/coronavirus-semen-china-health/index.html

Well, that's not what you posted a cap of in post #840.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Also, the American Cancer Society who the cervix study we're discussing came from seem to think only men can get prostate cancer:View attachment 42770

A) that's not what the picture you've attached says, and B) if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with them.

 

[Manger Douse]

Firstly, did you read the study? It was a study of, specifically, 38 cisgender men. What is imprecise about using the word "men" in that context?

Becuause women can have penises too. I don't see cis mentioned in that study - do you have full access to it?

Secondly, I'm not the person who is mocking medical professionals for the terminology they use. I'm the one who's finding it vaguely amusing that people who no doubt consider themselves generally pro-science are going down the "hur-de-hur, look at these woke libtards" route when the science in question uses precise and accurate language that doesn't match their particular biased bugbear of choice.

I'm not mocking anyone - I'm questioning if such a precise language is necessary why didn't they use penis havers

Well, that's not what you posted a cap of in post #840.

I beg your pardon - I thought I attached an image from the semen study

 

[Manger Douse]

A) that's not what the picture you've attached says, and B) if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with them.

It says the most common form of cancer for men is prostate cancer, not the most common form of cancer for prostate havers is prostate cancer. I don't actually have a problem with the language used, I just thought you might have

 

[caveman1917]

Secondly, I'm not the person who is mocking medical professionals for the terminology they use. I'm the one who's finding it vaguely amusing that people who no doubt consider themselves generally pro-science are going down the "hur-de-hur, look at these woke libtards" route when the science in question uses precise and accurate language that doesn't match their particular biased bugbear of choice.

The only bias I've seen so far is those medical professionals' differing definitions of "male" and "female", as was linked to above, perhaps you would like to comment on that? Especially since you seem to be so in favour of these - what you consider to be "precise and accurate" - definitions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Becuause women can have penises too.

How is that relevant to those 38 specific men who were the subject of that study?

I'm not mocking anyone[...]

I didn't say you were.

- I'm questioning if such a precise language is necessary why didn't they use penis havers

Feel free to ask them.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It says the most common form of cancer for men is prostate cancer, not the most common form of cancer for prostate havers is prostate cancer.

And? That's not saying what you claimed it said - that only men can get prostate cancer.

Tell, me - if I say that the most common cause of death amongst obese people in having a heart attack, am I saying that only obese people have heart attacks? You're being silly and illogical in your desperate flailing to try to engineer some kind of gotcha.

I don't actually have a problem with the language used, I just thought you might have

Why?

 

[Manger Douse]

How is that relevant to those 38 specific men who were the subject of that study?

Because women with penises could unwittingly spread covid19 because of the imprecise language of the study and way its reported

- I'm questioning if such a precise language is necessary why didn't they use penis havers

Feel free to ask them.

You're the one saying such language is very important - why aren't you asking them?

 

[Manger Douse]

And? That's not saying what you claimed it said - that only men can get prostate cancer.

It only mentioned men - is precise language important or not?

Tell, me - if I say that the most common cause of death amongst obese people in having a heart attack, am I saying that only obese people have heart attacks? You're being silly and illogical in your desperate flailing to try to engineer some kind of gotcha.



Why?

I'd say you were using imprecise language

 

[Manger Douse]

The only bias I've seen so far is those medical professionals' differing definitions of "male" and "female", as was linked to above, perhaps you would like to comment on that? Especially since you seem to be so in favour of these - what you consider to be "precise and accurate" - definitions.

Quite - I'm most intrigued as to why it seems only one half of the population needs such precise, granular terminology

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because women with penises could unwittingly spread covid19 because of the imprecise language of the study and way its reported

Are you genuinely concerned about this, or are you still trying to engineer yourself that gotcha?

You're the one saying such language is very important - why aren't you asking them?

I'm the one who is mildly amused by the anti-science stance that some of the supposedly critical thinkers in this thread have, probably unwittingly, taken.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It only mentioned men - is precise language important or not?

What's imprecise about referring to 38 men as men?

I'd say you were using imprecise language

What's imprecise about it?

 

[Manger Douse]

Are you genuinely concerned about this, or are you still trying to engineer yourself that gotcha?

You're the one who has expressed concern - I'm just trying to understand whether that concern is justified or not - have you spoken to the American Cancer Society yet?

I'm the one who is mildly amused by the anti-science stance that some of the supposedly critical thinkers in this thread have, probably unwittingly, taken.

What has that to do with me?