Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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've expressed concern about anti-science sentiment. I'm generally of the opinion that this is not a good thing.

What has that to do with me?

**** knows. You're the one who started replying to me. I was quite happily ignoring you entirely until you decided to try to oh-so-cleverly trap me into a gotcha.

 

[Manger Douse]

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

As I said, it ignores that women can have penises too

What's imprecise about it?

Because anyone can have a heart-attack. If your job is warning society as whole on the dangers of heart attacks, Only mentioning obesity seems a foolish way of doing so

 

[Manger Douse]

I've expressed concern about anti-science sentiment. I'm generally of the opinion that this is not a good thing.

So you've challenged the language in the semen study ?

**** knows. You're the one who started replying to me. I was quite happily ignoring you entirely until you decided to try to oh-so-cleverly trap me into a gotcha.

All I've done is challenge your claim that such precise terms are necessary and given you counter examples from scientists who didn't feel the need for such granular language

 

[The Atheist]

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

Loving your work!

 

[caveman1917]

I've expressed concern about anti-science sentiment. I'm generally of the opinion that this is not a good thing.

"anti-science sentiment"

That definition of "female" you've found on that website is circular, which makes it straight up pseudoscientific and not scientific. Furthermore, the fact that only "female" gets redefined circularly but "male" retains its scientific definition clearly shows that this change is not driven by scientific accuracy or precision but by a desire to accommodate certain ideological preferences. That is anti-science sentiment.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As I said, it ignores that women can have penises too

If I were to say that my sister were a woman, then would I be ignoring the fact that some women who are not my sister have penises? You're being very silly in order to try to trip me up in some way.

You might want to take a step back and think about what you're actually trying to accomplish with this conversation and why.

Because anyone can have a heart-attack. If your job is warning society as whole on the dangers of heart attacks, Only mentioning obesity seems a foolish way of doing so

My job is not warning society as a whole on the dangers of heart attacks. My job, in that hypothetical, was reporting on what the biggest dangers are to obese people.

Similarly, the job of the people conducting that study of 38 people was to report the relevant data about those 38 people.

Seriously, take a deep breath, take a step back, stop giving knee-jerk responses in the hope that you'll at some point be able to go "Ha! I've tricked you into saying something that I can twist as being hypocritical!" and just have a think about what you're saying.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So you've challenged the language in the semen study ?

Look, if you're really determined to go for this gotcha, then I'll respectfully suggest that a better tactic would be to respond to opinions that I've expressed, rather than keep harping on this pseudo-"when did you stop beating your wife?" I'm not 8, and I'm not going to go for it. And even if I did, then what would you actually have "won"? You'd have managed to trick me into saying something that both you and I know isn't what I think and wasn't what I meant. So...congratulations?

All I've done is challenge your claim that such precise terms are necessary and given you counter examples from scientists who didn't feel the need for such granular language

Well, since I've never said that and twice said that that's not what I'm doing, then perhaps you can start to see where you're going wrong.

 

[Manger Douse]

If I were to say that my sister were a woman, then would I be ignoring the fact that some women who are not my sister have penises? You're being very silly in order to try to trip me up in some way.

You're talking about one person, your sister - not a group of people as a whole and I assume this isn't for a scientific paper or news article where you say more precise language is important

My job is not warning society as a whole on the dangers of heart attacks. My job, in that hypothetical, was reporting on what the biggest dangers are to obese people.

Similarly, the job of the people conducting that study of 38 people was to report the relevant data about those 38 people.

The biggest danger of transmitting covid via semen is from penis havers, not men - why did they only mention men if precise language is so important?

I've snipped out the parts of your post I feel go against rule 12

 

[Manger Douse]

Look, if you're really determined to go for this gotcha, then I'll respectfully suggest that a better tactic would be to respond to opinions that I've expressed, rather than keep harping on this pseudo-"when did you stop beating your wife?" I'm not 8, and I'm not going to go for it. And even if I did, then what would you actually have "won"? You'd have managed to trick me into saying something that both you and I know isn't what I think and wasn't what I meant. So...congratulations?



Well, since I've never said that and twice said that that's not what I'm doing, then perhaps you can start to see where you're going wrong.

Is precise language such "cervix havers" necessary or not?

 

[Ziggurat]

I honestly don't know what this push-back against medical professionals using precise terminology is all about (well, other than knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children!" transphobia), but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing.

Why are they using "precise" language? Is it because they need to be precise? No, it isn't. People are not confused about who does and does not have a cervix, and people are not confused about the fact that only people with a cervix can get cervical cancer. All of these things are obvious and generally known, and if for some reason you don't know who does or does not have a cervix, then the use of "precise" language in this case doesn't actually serve to inform.

No, that wasn't "precise" in order to avoid confusion. It was "precise" in order to avoid offense.

 

[d4m10n]

People are not confused about who does and does not have a cervix, and people are not confused about the fact that only people with a cervix can get cervical cancer. All of these things are obvious and generally known, and if for some reason you don't know who does or does not have a cervix, then the use of "precise" language in this case doesn't actually serve to inform.

I'm afraid the fraction of individuals with a cervix who don't know what it is or what it does may be somewhat higher than anyone here (on this fairly science-minded forum) may've guessed.

https://twitter.com/pcwhf/status/875684821640589313

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You're talking about one person, your sister

And the study in question was talking about 38 people. See how that works?

The biggest danger of transmitting covid via semen is from penis havers, not men - why did they only mention men if precise language is so important?

The study was of 38 people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is precise language such "cervix havers" necessary or not?

The scientists in that particular case evidently thought it was the best language to use. I'm the one arguing that laymen and non-experts probably shouldn't be dictating to scientists and experts what language they should use in their fields.

 

[Manger Douse]

And the study in question was talking about 38 people. See how that works?



The study was of 38 people.

What did all those people have in common?

 

[Manger Douse]

The scientists in that particular case evidently thought it was the best language to use. I'm the one arguing that laymen and non-experts probably shouldn't be dictating to scientists and experts what language they should use in their fields.

Yet the American Cancer Society doesn't think such language is necessary when talking about prostate havers - I'm trying to understand, from a scientific perspective, whats the difference is?

From d4m10n's link it would seem using such precise terminology could be harmful

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why are they using "precise" language?

Feel free to ask them. The authors' names are on the guidelines, which I linked upthread. Or you can make assumptions and have a tantrum based on those assumptions, if you feel that's a more productive use of your time.

But bear in mind, before you get yourself too worked up, that there are other instances of the article being precise about the meaning of the terms it is using. For example:

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 ).

That's the first sentence. The very first thing it does is identify the American Cancer Society, and make clear that it will be abbreviated as "ACS". This is despite the fact that the guidelines are from the American Cancer Society, are published in the American Cancer Society's journal, and make clear in the title that they are from the American Cancer Society. Anybody reading the guidelines should already be well aware that they are from the American Cancer Society and, indeed, that that is abbreviated to "ACS".

It then identifies that human papillomavirus is abbreviated to "HPV". These guidelines are specifically for clinicians, published in a journal for clinicians, specifically clinicians in a field relevant to HPV testing. So everybody reading the guidelines should already be well aware of what "HPV" means.

It then goes on to explain what the term "cotesting" means despite, again, the fact that these are guidelines specifically for clinicians, published in a journal for clinicians, specifically clinicians in a field relevant to HPV testing.

But, for some reason, it's only the precision and clarity of "individuals with a cervix" that has people clutching their pearls because of an assumption that they're trying to (shock horror gasp!) "avoid offense" (how dare they!?!?!?!).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What did all those people have in common?

That they were men, apparently.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yet the American Cancer Society doesn't think such language is necessary when talking about prostate havers - I'm trying to understand, from a scientific perspective, whats the difference is?

Feel free to ask them. I'm the one arguing that laymen and non-experts probably shouldn't be dictating to scientists and experts what language they should use in their fields.

 

[Manger Douse]

That they were men, apparently.

But some women produce semen too - such a woman might read this study or how it was reported on CNN and be mistaken that they can't transmit covid 19 sexually because they're women, not penis havers.

 

[Manger Douse]

Feel free to ask them. I'm the one arguing that laymen and non-experts probably shouldn't be dictating to scientists and experts what language they should use in their fields.

I might well do - as d4m10ns link shows, such precise medical terminology could lead to people dieing