I’m gay

  • 63 Posts
Joined 8M ago
Cake day: Jan 28, 2022


Male and female are useful in biology, and therefore in medicine.

As I explained in another comment, in human medicine it is much less useful than knowing what parts a human has and what lab results can tell us about the relevant hormones and other biomarkers of interest. Most people interact with medicine on a personal level, and because of such having more detailed conversations with your doctor(s) will often result in better care.

With that being said, used as a broad term to describe broad effects such as when classifying data at the population level, it can be a useful and quick piece of information to collect. If you’re trying to determine compliance with social determinants of health, it may be faster to collect sex (or gender) than it is to ask people to create a catalog of the important body parts or to ask other broad questions such as “are you disabled” to understand systems better.

It’s an interesting concept, to have a term which is most useful at a certain level of abstraction and less useful the less people you’re referring to with it. We’ve got a decent amount of these in our lexicons and yet I see people drawing false inferences all the time. It’s almost as in if we aren’t having conversations about how broad terms like race, gender, employment status, etc. can be useful when dealing with population level statistics for the purpose of understanding systems, but not particularly useful on an individual basis when trying to determine information about a individual or a small group of them.

I work in healthcare. I’m a data scientist. I get requests all the time where people ask for gender of their patients. Problem is, we don’t capture gender. Or at least, we don’t capture gender for most. We have a field for sex, which is filled in for nearly all patients. Gender is filled in on a separate form which many people are not trained on and thus only present for <5% of our patients.

When I let physicians know that we only have sex available, they inevitably still ask for it. I typically press them as to why- what clinical purpose do you need this for? Their responses vary wildly. Many realize when questioned that they are simply collecting it to collect it - it doesn’t have a real clinical purpose. In some cases, incidences of certain disease states are tied to gender in literature, and knowing that someone is more likely to have a specific disease is something that can be clinically relevant. For these people I provide the information, but I have a short talk with them first. I let them know that the recorded sex often doesn’t tell them what they actually want. There are many individuals with a variety of disorders which can affect what hormones are present in their body, what sex characteristics developed, or how at risk they are for particular disorders. In addition, many trans (and in some cases cis) people may have an inaccurate chart - I have heard plenty of stories of trans men with beards being asked about their prostate by a PCP and trans women asked about concerns related to child birth. While rarer, I have heard the same from some cis people who are androgynous. In most cases a parts inventory is more useful (or in some cases, an understanding of circulating hormones), albeit much like gender, is something we don’t often collect.

Is that all it tells us? Seems a bit of a reach to compare to the usefulness of hot/cold which can inform how/what clothes we should wear to be comfortable or avoid heat stroke or hypothermia, whether an environment can support human life, whether we can get injured from touching an object, what precautions we should be taking when interacting with a hot/cold object, whether a chemical reaction might occur, and many other higher stakes questions than where someone should go to the bathroom.

I’ve heard one should go for the v1, as v2 is reportedly more locked in and have less features.

Can you speak more to this? Pretty much every review and reddit thread I could dig up seems to lean v2 with the caveat that it’s more expensive than the 1, but they don’t make the 1 anymore so that’s not really the case.

Dopamine is not the only important neural pathway. Mainstream vaping is typically of two varieties - nicotine and cannabis. While dopamine is technically involved in both, the receptor pathways which are perhaps more important are the nicotinamide receptors in the former and cannabinoid receptors for the latter.

I think there’s a good chance for some sampling bias. At the very least there’s some selection bias, in that it’s representative of Australian Gen Z individuals who opted into some ‘willingness to participate in surveys’ on an online website (or seemingly so, it’s possible they may have signed up in person? its unclear in the methodology section exactly how they were recruited, but it does give some high level ideas).

In 2021, an online survey was conducted across Australia’s major cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra and Adelaide. The actual study participants were recruited using simple random sampling (based on computer-generated random numbers) from a database of 35,000 people who have previously indicated willingness to participate in surveys.

Out of 698 randomly invited participants, 478 responded by completing the survey, generating a response rate of 68.5%.

I also don’t think the question was designed all that well

When asked about the main contributors to climate change and presented with a long list of factors allowing multiple choices and an open-ended “Other” option to include another opinion

How many should I select if I’m talking about main contributors? I’m sure many participants asked themselves this question when clicking boxes. If I click every box, is that reflective of the “main contributors”? When I hit 5 boxes, is that enough? If I’m trying to disambiguate between the options of “livestock and agriculture” and “big corporations and industry”, I’d definitely side with the latter as more important because you can have sustainable livestock and agriculture but large corporations typically do not. Also the latter is a larger box which holds most of the problems of the former. Do I select both when we’re talking about “main contributors”? I’m not certain how I might have answered, had I been presented the same survey.

In the end, I think the author jumps to more conclusions than is supported by the limits of the methodology employed.

A lot easier to pass a mandate requiring people to develop this than pass the budget for the recycling, sadly. 😔

Not all that surprising given how social dynamics work at different age groups. I do wonder how well queers are represented in the sample and a bit about where/how people are added to this sample, but I don’t have access to the study nor is it currently on scihub.

We would be very interested in a better method for limitation on this as well - some kind of age and size limits or automatic pruning would be wonderful.

Exercising judgement is a difficult act, but not one that is black or white. It shouldn’t be painted as something that is or isn’t, either. A slippery slope either existing or not is a false dichotomy trying to shoehorn a complicated situation into an on/off configuration.

Calling the application of social pressure to get cloudflare to stop enabling hate a slippery slope is ignoring that it’s arguably the first instance of something like this to happen, it took an enormous amount of effort for it to happen, while it was not happening the livelihoods of individuals were being harassed, harmed, and destroyed, and it involved a private enterprise making a decision for themselves and is not reflective of how others in the industry will respond.

Of important framing, did we call the workers rights movement a slippery slope? Racial justice? Feminism? I think the more contentious the public perception is of a movement, the more likely people are to call something enabling said movement a slippery slope. However, on the opposite side of things we usually recognize the reduction or removal of human rights or governmental representation universally as a slippery slope when the issue is no longer contentious or is broad enough to apply to all individuals (while nobles may have framed the rise of democracies as a slippery slope away from monarchistic and feudal governmental systems, I doubt the same was said by the majority of individuals who stood to benefit from this paradigm shift). Applying the wording of ‘slippery slope’ to make demons out of issues they simply disagree with seemingly only happens by conservative individuals to protect a worldview that suppresses others.

Hey there, I’ve given you a 3 day ban for not being nice. Please review the rules in our sidebar and be nice in the future.

if you’re not willing to treat users on this instance with good faith, perhaps you should find another instance 😊

Please don’t reply multiple times to the same person, make one coherent reply with all your points so we can keep things tidy. While they could have potentially asked in a nicer way, someone asking for a source does not make them a shill and does not warrant throwing accusations back at them.

Marked this as NSFW to make it clear it discusses troublesome content

If students can form associations, does it matter that much what the association is about?

We have laws to protect against hate and harming others. If you freely associate a group to spread hate, this should not be allowed. I disagree with the supreme court here in that they should not allow universities to suppress non-hateful groups. But then again, they want to openly discriminate against pretty much all minorities given their stances on existing supreme court precedence so it’s not surprising the court found the way it did.

Back in 2014 a company I used to work for started plans on building a new office building. The new building was going to be open office, our current building was semi-open, in that it was cubicles but the cubicles actually blocked above the monitor. I got in touch with the committee working with the architect to better understand the request, what the architect was going to do, and to see how I could get involved. This idea of increased collaboration was really taking off in the 2000s after many large silicon valley tech companies had pushed their idea on others, but by the 2010s there was a growing amount of literature explaining just how open offices were problematic and ways to reduce these problems.

Ultimately the simplest and cheapest solution is to have higher cubicles - they block sound, allow people to not feel like they are being watched 24/7, provide enough of a barrier to prevent people from just idly chattering to each other, and for most people don’t encourage them to invest in a set of really nice noise cancelling headphones as a way to fight the noisy environment. I sent the papers, along with an executive summary as both an email and a powerpoint slide over to the architect. I presented all of this to my boss and once again to people higher up than me. Ultimately, they decided to ignore all the evidence and continue to chase their gut feeling that this will be ‘great’. I left that company before they finished their new building and landed at a new company which also had a much more open office space.

I’m glad I work remote now. These layouts suck, and the author does a great job of explaining exactly why that is very early on in the article. People aren’t stupid, and it doesn’t matter if you put them in a fucking empty box together - if they have need to collaborate, they will, and architecture is going to be one of their last concerns

…they decide, individually and collectively, when to interact. Even in open spaces with colleagues in close proximity, people who want to eschew interactions have an amazing capacity to do so. They avoid eye contact, discover an immediate need to use the bathroom or take a walk, or become so engrossed in their tasks that they are selectively deaf

I mean if you’re writing a blog to get found by SEO you’re doing it for capitalistic reasons and to think you’re above the same capitalistic demise of ‘journalistic integrity’ is just narcissism at that point.

Perhaps ironically this author could have made their point in a much shorter article. I have no issue paying attention to something long that I feel is of good quality. When it’s a seven minute read because you haven’t bothered to reduce the clutter, or because you make the same statement five times, I’m going to lose interest quickly because I’m not sure you have much to say, but rather you just like to hear yourself talk (or in this case, transcribe it).

> “I went to hug him because he was upset, and next thing I know they just yelled ‘Jason!’ and they ‘pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,'” Odell said. “I about got shot. I felt the compressions of the bullets. It was horrible.”