Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CharonY last won the day on October 7

CharonY had the most liked content!

About CharonY

Profile Information

  • Location
    somewhere in the Americas.
  • Interests
    Breathing. I enjoy it a lot, when I can.
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Biology/ (post-)genome research
  • Biography
    Labrat turned grantrat.


  • Biology Expert

Recent Profile Visitors

67643 profile views

CharonY's Achievements


SuperNerd (12/13)



  1. Maybe you are thinking of "I have no mouth and I must scream"? IIRC the protagonist was made unable to kill himself by transforming him into a kind of immortal blob (hence having no mouth). Of course as all stories there are even older ones, Prometheus being perpetually eaten by an eagle comes to mind. Zapatos' story sounds maddingly familiar but I cannot recall the title of the story nor whether I actually read it...
  2. And that in turn just demonstrates that his opposition to C-16 was just to gain attention. After all the bill itself (as well as the existing provisions on the provincial level) failed to manifest in actual compelled speech by law. I.e. he is just making a bit thing out of nothing and it seems to have seen more traction than proponents of alternative pronouns. I.e. I have seen more folks claiming that there is a law regarding pronoun use vs folks demanding the use of "ze".
  3. I can't as a) I have not seen it happening and so far it looks like a suggestion. If it transforms into the real world I may have more thoughts about it. Who forces though in your mind? Society? And if the balance is forcing minorities to conform or forcing part of the majority to conform, where should the balance be? Because clearly social pressures are happening whether you like or not, because actions (and in case of certain minorities the mere existence) has consequences.
  4. It is also everyone's right to criticize views as part of their freedom of expression. Not doing it is also a courtesy. The question for each individual is really who we want to accommodate. Folks based on their gender identity, because that is who they are, or folks that decide to be against accommodations. In the past, the majority decision was usually that minorities have to accommodate majority opinions. E.g. if folks decide that being gay in unnatural, well you just have to deal with it. Now, we do have a societal shift in trying to be accommodate more (even if it is sometimes only in a performative way) but it is also supported by science which some (but certainly not all) give it more weight than just opinions. So at least some of the demands have shifted from affected minorities to the majority and this is where much of the pushback comes from. In the past one does not have to accommodate much as part of majority. Most decision by the majority group was considered the norm and deviations suffered pushback. While it seems to be a reversal, it is important to note that it really only affects a rather limited area (i.e. the area where discrimination can be demonstrated). I will also invite folks who seem to treat gender identity as an opinion or fake to investigate their own sense gender. I assume it is the same for almost everyone else, but I do not recall ever to make a conscious decision regarding how I feel about my gender or sexual orientation. I certainly never had to karyotype myself or double-check my reproductive organs. As such I find it easy to understand how others might feel about their gender but having a mismatched body. We are only starting to understand how biology causes a certain gender identity, but dismissing it outright is certainly not something that follows our current understanding.
  5. OK, so as someone on the other side I can tell you that while we do all that, it is a burden on us and one that many of us feel unnecessary. Why should we be required to do the extra work just to earn the same level of respect that others get for free? I mean, of course it is a waste of time since every time you resolved an issue, another pops up. And if you address it too frequently, your are considered the one being disruptive. So we keep our heads down, don't complain too much if folks keep misspelling our name just to remain in folks' good graces. That being said, as it turns out that this attitude can hurt you in positions with higher visibility. For example, I did not mind too much about misspelling my name or that folks for some reasons keep forgetting to put my PhD to my name (but interestingly remembered for everyone else). However it resulted in folks thinking that a fresh postdoc was the project lead, for example or that my name ended up not appearing in press releases in time. I mean, especially in hindsight it is very clear why that happened, but in the past, who would dare to voice it? The way folks reacted when asking folks to do simple things like check spelling before sending things out (or give me a copy so that I could check) was almost asking them for a kidney or two. It was a bit refreshing that in countries USA or Canada folks actually apologized for misspelling your name, so I actually liked that blast of PC (which, again to me is just a basic level of mutual respect). Sure, you can characterize that as whining, if you want, but to me it is not having yet to deal with another thing on my plate. There is now a growing body of literature showing that the cumulation of this small things are adding to measurable levels of stress on the molecular level, so it is not just performance, it is something with an actual health impact. Now going back to sexual minorities, that effect has been found to be rather profound and one good summary can be found here: https://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/exchange/2012/04/minority-stress
  6. I would not be too hopeful about that. Even before the pandemic the most common specific question you get is "will it be part of the exam". During the pandemic, it has become awfully clear that not only cheating is rampant. Even worse, often you can find copy/pasted answers where the first sentence kind of make sense, but the rest is just nonsense. I.e. folks do not read past the first couple of lines. And unfortunately that is also often the case when they are given reading materials. The generation of especially premeds I have seen makes me afraid for the future of the medical system.
  7. Simple answer is probably psychoactive drugs. Sci-Fi answer could be activating the reward centres in the brain without drugs. It is not really that sci-fi as it has been done in animal models (there is even a wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward). I think the range of potential issues are well described, starting from addiction, withdrawal from reality, lack of motivation and so on).
  8. So now you are fine with disobedience? But I assume we have moved on from the notion that this was all about pronoun use? Based on his publication records he has not worked in the area of gender-related mental health so not sure what his specialization is. That being said, there are recommendations by professional psychology associations and if Peterson follows those (even if they run counter his personal convictions), it may fall within the realm of his expertise. If he does not, it would be akin to an antivaccination MD. I am not sure what your ultimate point is, but I am pretty use that I probably am not going to an ob/gyn when I need a proctologist. And I would be critical regarding medical advice if they have developed their own idea about diseases and conditions that are not based on established medical frameworks. Perhaps the criticism folks not using thou will be criticized for using you and thou wrongly. Thou was the second person singular and the use of the plural form you is obviously wrong as there is only one koti. Bigotry depends on context on motivation. Just using a word does not tell folks either. And that is the crux of the anti-pronoun folks, they see the use in isolation (like in an online forum) and do not seem to realize that all is context-dependent. This is why also why folks do not simply get arrested for using a certain pronoun and why folks generally are not offended by accidental misgendering. In real life folks often also visually represent themselves a certain way, which already gives social cues how they want to be addressed and it I would assume it to be normal to follow such cues. Online you can make rather outrageous claims without any effort which cuts away a lot of the context. I also want to add that we have not pivoted away from argument A) (legal challenge) and are now again at B) (I don't wanna). Here the argument is you can be an arse if you want and you won't be legally challenged. However other folks might consider you an arse, including your employer.
  9. The issue here is that the whole matter would be the same if there the minor had a different medical condition. I am not sure which laws specifically apply but I assume the court order was in place because a) a minor was involved and b) medical records were involved. What I found was this: So in other words for the most past it appeared there were breaches in privacy rights. Can you see that the issue leading to jail has virtually nothing to do with pronouns or even just voicing opinion? Or conversely, do you think that folks' medical records should be allowed to be released without consent? But regardless whether you think the court order was just or not, it is about publishing specific records, not about someone's opinion or that someone was offended (well, besides the judge maybe). As such it does not really solidify the assumption that indeed many folks have been impacted by the law over misuse of pronouns. And again, if it is so hard to actually find actual examples, it may be time to re-thing the veracity of the assumption. Folks here are science-minded, and as such evidence-driven, aren't they? So why not apply the same skills to other topics?
  10. Actually no, I asked you to provide evidence there is ample evidence of folks being prosecuted based on Bil C-16 or because of pronouns. So let's the question again before we claim moving the goalpost, shall we? And that was prompted by So after all this outrage all you can come up with is one, and as the links indicated not because of pronouns or offending someone, but because contempt of the court? I mean, if that was such a big deal one would expect to come up with at least a couple of cases where someone was "charged" because someone did not "use their preferred pronoun?" If someone has stretch so much to find one case that is at best tangentially related, why spend so much energy on being offended by the situation? In contrast to clearly documented violence and discrimination against transgender folks this seems rather excessive.
  11. That is a poor analogy as it is well understood that the economy is not a zero sum game. In your example additional folks coming in could pool their resources and increase the size of the house (i.e. incoming population both consume and produce). The relationship between pop size and economy can be complex, depending on the overall economy under investigation e.g. But clearly the empirical evidence does not support a zero sum model.
  12. Again, outrage sells, and some are very good at fueling it (including folks like Peterson). Is the perpetuum mobile of money-making (and why facebook was so bloody reluctant to take off deadly misinformation who cares if a few hundred thousands might die if money is to be had?).
  13. Note that no one has provided any evidence of pronoun persecution. Just made the claim based on nothing as far as I can tell.
  14. I see we have reverted to argument A). Again, there is no legislation for that and folks are not prosecuted for misgendering. It is not about enforcing proper pronouns.
  15. And many do feel the same way. You forget that communication is also a social tool. You interact with that person. So if I decide to repeatedly call you a feminized version of your name, for example, it could be considered endearing if you are good friends, or perhaps intimidating if, say I was your boss. You may be OK with it either way or not. You are free to express your satisfaction/dissatisfaction to me. I had only few interactions with transgender folks and have misgendered a couple of times for different reasons and the interactions were always amicable. I did agree to call them their chosen name, but they were generally fine when I got confused and made my he/she dance. Slightly embarrassing for everyone involved but no big deal. As others noted, it only becomes a deal when it becomes a pattern of abuse. If I make it clear that I single them out. Same goes for religious folks. If I keep making disparaging comments about religion, religious students are likely to complain. If I on top single out the catholic student and make pedophile priest jokes at them, I may be in real trouble. Again, not an issue of law and something that has been around since human interaction and language existed. Why some folks think pronoun are such a big thing compared to all our other limits of social interactions, is still not clear to me. You make it so that every non-binary person wants to have things just right for them. Yet in reality there are real persons and as far as I have seen the only demand is to have the same baseline respect as other folks. I have therefore no idea why folks would be upset about books in your example (unless somehow the author creates a caricature of e.g. transgender people, but I suspect that is not what you had in mind). Of course there are always a small number of folks in every group that are unreasonable. However, I suspect that if we count the number of folks being offended to be "forced to use a pronoun" vs folks that are actually offended by certain pronouns the former would outnumber the latter. It is really that social media and certain news outlet make it so big of an issue that it appears to be a huge boogeyman of sorts.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.