Why are they all so predictable? Mad the way they’re so oblivious to how this makes it impossible to take them seriously.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Why are they all so predictable? Mad the way they’re so oblivious to how this makes it impossible to take them seriously.
I can't watch Peterson, he's such a pompous prick. Every time he speaks I get the impression like he thinks he's better than everybody and is almost bored at having to explain to the peasants the way he thinks in ways that our tiny brains could possibly comprehend.
In fairness, he must be getting bored having to explain the same content in each interview.
I've watched only 2 interviews of him but so far that's not the impression I got.
I'd probably be like that if I was constantly faced with shit interviewers putting words in my mouth and willfully misinterpreting everything I'd said.
He’s such a muppet. His viewpoints kind of intrigue me though. I don’t agree with him, but it’s such a recognizable point in society.I'd probably be like that if I was on a meat only diet and constipated all the time.
She’s quite impressive. The science seems to chime with what feels intuitive too. Very young kids can’t possibly differentiate between the earliest feelings of homosexuality and being transgender.
It's funny, his last appearance on Joe Rogan has made him look a right fool.
One cider sending him into a month long nihilistic malaise and the 'meat diet' have made him look completely mad.
Possibly, but I don't think it's an excuse. He's communicating to the masses, not to the interviewer. They're just the conduit to us. If he doesn't want to explain the same content he should stop accepting interviews where he's asked the same questions. I just can't take someone seriously who appears that openly arrogant and disdainful. I'd be eager to try and learn something if the person speaking wasn't being a dick about whatever he was talking about.
The exchange at 10:00 was fascinating. Apparently the amount of testosterone one is exposed to in utero, informs how masculine or feminine you are within your own gender. She is suggesting effeminate gay men were exposed to smaller amounts of testosterone, thus the effeminate traits. I had no idea that this is how it plays out.
That's true for all men and women. i.e Lesbians who identify as butch tend to have been exposed to more prenatal testosterone than lesbians who identify as femme.
I’m not an expert and can’t be arsed digging deep into the literature but I do know that every piece of research is open to at least some criticism (the authors highlight these flaws in the “Discussion” section) . So it stands to reason that there are people who will want to pick holes in the studies she quotes, if they don’t like the findings. I’m also sure that a lot (most?) gender dysphoric kids are dealt with sensitively and competently but I’m sure there are plenty of cases where they aren’t and it’s clear that the science, at the very least, seems to call into question the logic in of allowing prepubescent kids go on blockers or have surgery early in their teens. A “wait and see” approach intuitively seems the most sensible and it’s good to hear that the research seems to back this up.
Last edited:
The criticism here is that they're asking questions from outdated models that didn't include asking the kid "are you a boy or a girl?" and then counting later nonparticipants as the answer they wanted. Then they ran poll of a group of parents on a forum about kids who were thought be trans but weren't that had no weighting or controls and applied it as being universally true. It's extremely shit science. I don't know what kids should be doing or what pills they should be taking - but I can tell when someone is putting forward an extremely bad argument and extremely bad data. Like, what kind of shit ass prediction comes back with a 30% margin or error?
Last edited:
'And I do apologise, Mr Ferguson, but there is f*ck-all you can do about it'?
I read the article. I understand the criticisms. I would imagine studying this sort of thing is rife with confounding variables and extremely difficult to design trials that factor in future shifts in diagnostic criteria. So it’s got to be close to be impossible to generate any kind of data that is beyond criticism. No matter how clear the hypothesis or carefully designed the protocol might be.
Like I said, I’m no expert, though. Unlike the person in the video, who has a PhD in this field. So I guess I’ll have to accept your learned opinion that she’s been fooled by “extremely shit science” and get back in my box.
The bit about porn addiction at 21:00 not being a real thing was pretty interesting as well. Looking forward to part 2 of the interview once its up.
Her PHD is in paraphilias and hypersexuality. I don't doubt that it was fine work and she defended it properly. But that's not what I'm questioning. If she's quoting dumb ass papers that were transparently designed to get the results required I'm gonna point that out.
Revealed at Last! Inside the Kibbutz Where Bernie Sanders Lived and Learned Socialism
Naomi ZeveloffFeb 4, 2016
Read more: https://forward.com/news/israel/332...bbutz-where-bernie-sanders-lived-and-learned/
And as you know, all leftists despise Bernie.
Do you think it’s possible that someone with a PhD in paraphilias and hypersexuality might be more familiar with - and better able to critically appraise - the literature on gender dysphoria than your good self?
The article Silva posted was co-signed by a few people:
who seem to have PhDs or advanced degrees in related fields.
The tweet suggests that she believes her position is being silenced - that automatically means she's admitting that it isn't the mainstream position in the research community.
Slightly related: did you see the replies to her on the tweet?
I will quote them.
It sure looks like her fans have been critically reading all sides of the academic debate
Is the video worth watching? How wide ranging a term is gender dysphoria anyway? Like does that cover tom boys and effeminate guys, or is it more specific to people who've taken medical steps to intervene with their gender? 40% doesn't sound that small a number really (depending on what exactly they're talking about)
To be fair Pogue, her PhD has nothing to do with her questioning. If I conduct a study where I ask you if you're a.) or b.) and you have never had any reason to believe there might be a c.) then I can't claim to have any concrete results on option c.) that was never presented to you. It's fairly obvious that you'd select either option a or b. And you wouldn't need a PhD in whatever field I might have one in to point that out, it's just common sense.
Not to mention, whilst a person with a PhD doesn't necessarily mean they're right on everything. Otherwise peers would never disagree with each other. There's a molecular biologist working as a tenured professor at the University of Berkeley who believes that HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS.
evidently not
No.
It's Dave Rubin. He could be interviewing Obama and I'd avoid it.
I'm not a Rubin fan, but this one was interesting.
I read some of the youtube comments. Full of morons who seem confused about whether they’re more besotted with her research or her looks. Youtube/twitter comments tell us nothing, other than the world is full of idiots.
As I said, the research is obviously open to criticism. That’s the nature of research. And with politically charged issues like this people are more critical of research that contradicts their prior agendas and less critical of research that supports it. Of course, I’m sure she’s bringing her own biases to the table, just like they are. I definitely think there’s a movement to stifle research/opinions that challenge the progressive orthodoxy in this field (the “gay face” hysteria she mentions being a good example) so the fact she feels she’s being silenced doesn’t necessarily mean she’s been conned by bad science.
Never watched one of his videos before. This one’s ok. Presumably because he doesn’t do much talking?
His videos usually promote his intellectual dark web schtick in some way...where he spends time bigging up free speech and the like. This one actually had a great guest and Rubin himself was oddly grounded in his questioning which made for a good video.
I'm reading a little more about the survey. Firstly, it was purely an internet survey of parents, with children never included. I agree that there are limitations with all studies but if this is the general standard god help us.
Much more alarming:
This doesn't seem like honest research.
FYI: an anti-trans strain of feminism on reddit is called GenderCritical and they call themselves 4th wave feminists IIRC.
Much more alarming:
This doesn't seem like honest research.
FYI: an anti-trans strain of feminism on reddit is called GenderCritical and they call themselves 4th wave feminists IIRC.
good news everyone I did a survey of trans people on ohmygodilovelifeeverythingisamazing.com and everything went great for them, solved it now give me all the awards
Is that the TERF thing?
Yes, r/gendercritical is the TERF hangout on reddit.
Don't use that word though, they've decided that it's a slur on par with the n-word or something.
Think the study raises an interesting point, but the 60-90% estimate seems extremely broad. Some further research in to the source also leaves me less than convinced.
It shouldn't be taboo to talk about though, doubly so when it's about children.
It shouldn't be taboo to talk about though, doubly so when it's about children.