CharonY

What we should do is take a look whether that is actually the case. From what I have seen burnout and job-related issues are far more common among academics. That includes dealing with students whining about their grades. BTW, at no point did anyone said that one should be forced to agree. Again, it is just the freedom for either side to say what they think and the freedom of either side to call the other dumbass for that. And in academia specifically most countries have a tenure system, which is supposed to be a safeguard of academic freedom and which, as far as I can tell, has not been violated. So at least in that regard academics are protected. Specifically in this case I see it that the public has the right to object to her claims (whatever they are) and she has very much the right to ignore them and rely on being protected by the tenure system. However, the only protection against public opinion is really only not to become a public figure. I will acknowledge that this becoming more and more difficult these days. Nonetheless, there is a reason why some folks do not have a big social media presence and why some researchers working on potentially dicey projects in the past have not made it very public. Or to put it differently, if someone makes a statement that you personally agree with, do you want to force others not to object to it?

Well, in absolute terms that is certainly true, we just eventually fall apart. The moderate is just referring to risk associated with a certain BMI in a certain age bracket. I.e. relative to other 71 year-olds your BMI-related risk is still comparatively low (but as you mentioned, does not take other health markers into account). And I agree with both, the issue with stroke is that it is just so bloody difficult to predict.

There are age-adjusted charts and roughly I think in either case you fall in roughly around low- moderate risk bracket. Whether that actually means anything is a different matter, of course, it is just based on comparison with age-adjusted cohorts.

Then please explain to me how this is fundamentally different to all the ideological clashes that have been happening? Why do you think that this case is so fundamentally different? Why do you think that a broader perspective on the issue is slimy and deplorable? And note that at no point I equated her position with a religious stance. Instead, in an effort to create a more neutral platform I have discussed it in terms of limitations of academic freedom. If this is indeed a unique situation you need to explain why it is, rather than posting the same video and making snide remarks again and again. Just because one agrees or disagrees with something does not mean that it changes the situation. That is why in my example I have represented that on both sides of an ideological rift (in that case creationism) folks lost their job rather than stating that one case was clearly correct over the other. If anyone in this thread has been continuous deflecting, it is you. I also find it also rich that you call me deplorable and call my attempts in abstracting the issue slimy and crude. Whereas obviously calling me delusional was classy and well thought out.

I think you are conflating a lot of issues here and it makes it difficult if not impossible to discuss them if they are not properly separated. Fundamentally I am not in favour of the type of public pressure against an individual. That being said, she is a public figure, and as part of freedom of expression folks are allowed to protest against her within limits. I have not read exactly what was done, but from what I understand she ultimately resigned and was not fired or prosecuted, which would be indeed a restriction of academic freedom. Now, of course protest can be considered a soft power influence on academic freedom, which one might want to discuss, but at the same time it has to be balanced with the general freedom of expression. Some scientific work extend to contentious areas (including e.g. GMOs, stem cells, psychoactive drugs, animal tests) and have been subject to protests (and at times, vandalism). But we mostly just have to navigate these issues and are certainly not interested to muzzle protesters. Again, this is nothing new. Likewise, in US public schools stances with regard to creationism and intelligent design have led to resignations and termination. Michael Reiss stepped down as director of education at the Royal Society after Fellows objected to his stance on teaching creationism in class. Conversely, in some US states, public school teachers and board members were forced to resign because they refused to teach creationism in school (and the history for that goes way back to at least the beginning of the 20th century). Obviously it is not simply a PC vs non-PC situation or a sudden new radical change in the landscape. We could make a new discussion regarding academic freedom, but I think it should be separated a bit from this thread as there are other issues that are relevant, which would muddle the ongoing discussion even further.

I think you are misrepresenting the state of research on suicide. While suicide can be associated with mental issues, it is not considered to be one. For the most part suicide is more associated with a lack of mental well-being. I.e. stress and other issues can be related to suicide. It is not about oppression, but rather the observation that in transgender person suicide rates are higher and studies have shown that at least some of it is related to gender-based discrimination. Conversely, higher acceptance of transgender identity in a given group is associated with higher well-being and reduced suicide risk. I do not think that this in doubt. However, it also means that depending on the social norms and in which group you are, you might get positive or negative feedback. If your social circle generally has a negative view on novel pronouns and/or transgender identity you can likely expect positive feedback. In other groups you may find negative ones. Marketplace of ideas and whatnot. What you cannot expect is that every group will accept all ideas. It was never the case in human history and I doubt it will ever happen. We are repeating the same argument yet again. But my overall point is this: if your opinion was accepted in the past, it is not because society was more free. It was because either your opinion was more in line to existing norms (which may or may not have shifted) or your social environment was closer to your norms. In addition, with the internet allowing broader discussions and also resulting in people (over)sharing their views, the potentially more restricted exchange (i.e. among folks you actually have contact with) has broadened up which makes it feel that you need to respond to more issues which you are actually not interested in.

You are not wrong and I should have added qualifiers, but the waist/ waist ratios has also some issues. BMI has been around for a very long time and I should have said that BMI worked better than other indicators investigated for a a long time. Now with regard to waist circumference and ratios, if I remember correctly they did not perform consistently better. In leaner cohorts they were generally superior, but when heavier folks were mixed in, it becomes more inconsistent. Central adiposity, as tracked by waist measurements, seems to be a good marker for risk in otherwise seemingly healthy folks. However, after a certain weight gain other factors contribute equally or more. Exactly.

Vertebrate mitochondria have slightly different code. Here, AGA and AGG both are stop codons.

I rather think that similar to pretty much all categories it has a (limited) area of application, but obviously falls short outside of it. Another issues is that BMI was developed based on mostly European cohorts, so the model is inherently biased. What it has been somewhat effectively is (again, for European cohorts) to find groups at risk for certain conditions, including diabetes and certain cardiovascular diseases. As such a rough indicator it works somewhat well (at least compared to other risk factors).

I think that has been an issue forever in society. However, I also do see that the current mode of being constantly connected to a host of folks who you haven' even met face-to-face has amplified the issue massively.

That aligns with how I view the issue. I think most of the other elements are more or less a distraction. I think we still do not fully understand how social media influence our thinking or the society as a whole. And for the younger generation communication via social media is the norm. There is a bit of a old guy element here, but I do think that there is at least some evidence that it is influencing the way we think and I am not entirely convinced that we have a good grip on it yet.

I think the issue is that it at least feels that we spend much less time on fact checking, which in part is because we are getting steamrolled by, well, stuff. There is so much misinformation around, it is very difficult to spend time to sift through that. As such, I do think that misinformation is becoming an increasing issue. If we cannot agree on the same set of facts, it would make it difficult to establish (or refute) legitimacy regardless of which parameters we apply. I do not like the term virtue signaling, because it sounds very vague to me and I think it muddies things more than it helps. But it is rather easy to find examples from either side of the political spectrum where the outrage does not match the issue. That being said, I am a bit hesitant to dismiss an issue just because some misinformed folks are involved. I.e. I think the issue is the part that requires scrutiny and not so much folks involved in it. For example, even if there are folks believing that say, the Earth is dying a heat death in the next 20 years, their belief does not invalidate climate data.

I think the principles of what we now call cancel culture is not new. As you mentioned, choosing to do certain things or being vocal about others is an old concept. Even public shaming is something that has been around for a long time and in Western society public humiliation was part of the penal code until at least the 18th century. In other cultures, they still persist. So to me the thing that has really changed is that due to increasing interconnectivity by social media and the internet, folks are seen to be taking sides in any given issue. In the past one could be ambiguous much more easily, but any post you make might be used to scrutinize or make assumptions about someone. In a way it was easier to be nice to folks in the past since you knew less about them. I would not be surprised that the vast majority of incidences involving some form of public shaming are online nowadays. I do agree that many folks then use these things in order to stoke the fears of their respective base. It is also part of the tendency to escalate rhetoric, which is not new, but has become far more effective due the way online communication has evolved. Some random and likely very rare occurrence are repeated so frequently that folks start to believe that this has become the norm. Then, by rebranding common social behaviour into something that helps stoke these fears, it is possible to create a threat to ones' own identity (regardless whether it is real or not) and thereby consolidate their base. This, is also not a new tactic, but again, I think our new ways of communicating has made it incredibly efficient and has allowed the creation of entire alternate realities.

! Moderator Note I think this is a good discussion to have and have split it from the existing thread. However, since I was involved in the original thread I would be happy to merge them back if there are objections to it.

I literally do not care. My name makes it difficult for folks to figure out my gender and I have been misgendered (in writing). Folks get my name wrong very often. I accepted that this just comes as being a foreigner with a weird name. I am slightly annoyed that folks that know me for years keep misspelling my name (especially in high-profile situations) and I do sometime feel I should be more outspoken about it. But emotionally I literally do not care. But thanks for trying to force your view on me. I have not seen that anyone has argued against that. That could be said consequence. Folks interpret your action and while might think it is courageous, others might interpret it differently. Personally I tend not to assume based on initial reactions (again, being foreigner and all that) but based on subsequent interactions. For example not wanting to use, say "ze" but finding another way to accommodate folks (e.g. using their name) sounds like a perfectly fine compromise to me. Some might disagree, and we can have a conversation about that. In contrast, if we start with a an untenable premise (e.g. not using "ze" lands you in prison) then it is an attempt to curb discussion. You have not worked in service, do you? If you are repeatedly and publicly discourteous, especially in an outward facing position, you better believe that your job is in peril. However, if folks are terminated due to discrimination laws, it is insufficient to label them as something, there will be a test that needs to meet the standards of discriminatory behaviour. And generally a one-off is rarely sufficient evidence for that. The way you describe it, it seems that if just someone calls someone else a bigot, it would result in firing, which of course is silly. And you know what, in contrast to your assumptions how things are, let me also give you a refutation of your first point. In Canada serious misconduct in the workplace is a cause for termination without severance. Like with discrimination, there are a series of tests that apply. But what could be considered misconduct related to rudeness? One, for example is insolence. This would include " derisive, contemptuous or abusive language, generally directed at a superior". It depends of course how you define discourteous, but: Another possibility would be breach of company policies which can have a wide range of demands, provided that they are lawful. Thus, depending on how discourteous you are, you can in fact be fired for that without being called a bigot.

I find it highly ironic that you do not recognize that this is freedom of expression at work. She said her thing and her colleagues as well as students did theirs. While I am not a fan of this kind of discourse, what would be a viable alternative? Compel her critics to remain silent? Freedom cuts both ways.

Absolutely, this is why I think the discussion should be more about how we should navigate these conflicting viewpoints rather than having a strong categorical stance. In a society we need to accommodate each other to a certain degree and I do not think that we can draw strict lines in the sand. These lines will be blurry and shift depending on the situation and with whom you interact. And it has been so since the beginning of time, and many of our habits and rituals stem come from that. Changing social mores are always going to be a challenge but at some point society settles on, well, something. I do think that public discussions have changed a bit due to the internet, which allows impersonal and superficial involvement in many, many issues, often with limited information. But then maybe that is just how getting old feels like.

Depends on the context. If I was your boss and with an ego problem I might resent someone calling me by an imaginary name (it's Mr. Fred for you). If so, depending on what kind of worker protection exist one might either directly fire you or at least ding your evaluation (and use that to fire you). You seem to forget that once you address folks, you are not alone anymore and whatever you do reflects on you. Folks are not fired for using wrong pronouns. They are used for establishing a certain pattern of behaviour. What pattern might result in firing or promotion varies a lot. Also as a general point, let's assume that a company institutes a policy of using preferred pronouns, a certain dress code and a given official language. Would you be equally against all of these policies and would you be surprised if you are let go if you violated those?

So do you introduce yourself with a name? I mean, that is like deciding for everyone else what your identity is, isn't it? Do you accept whatever folks decide who you are? In your righteous indignation you seem to forget that each interaction between individuals is governed by a range of social norms, ranging from language, how folks are being addressed and what potential consequences are. It goes back again to what we discussed a dozen pages earlier that you basically want those rules set up in a given way that your freedom of expression trumps all consequences, a situation that had never existed in human history (married folks know what I am talking about...). Of course you may decide that you are not going to be coerced to greet folks or niceties, for example. But on the same note you cannot complain that folks may not like you for that reason.

That is a very good description what I was trying to convey.

In addition, biological mechanisms have some level of stochasticity so the transition can be imperfect but depending on what you research it might be ignored because it does not help with your study. Yet obviously biologically it happens. You might as well look at hormonal level, which are a continuous variable so you could even asses different degrees of differentiation rather than a binary one. It just depends on how precisely you measure. And that is a common theme in nature, most things run on a continuum as biochemical systems are rarely just on and off. If we wanted to be really precise one could create a quantitative measures that would span the whole continuum between male and female. Whether that is useful for us (as observer) is a different story. But nature does not really care, it is just provides the mechanisms.

Two things, first of all if you need to look at things on a case-by case level with a swath of organisms not falling into that category, we are clearly not talking about an universal categorization. As such already here your claim has to be qualified. I.e. we are now talking only about a subset of species rather than an universal concept, aren't we? In fact sex determination is also not quite as straightforward. I am not a zoologist, but depending on species folks have established species specific determinants that help folks identify either sex. Yet there are cases where some of these attempt fail or have led to interesting observation. I already mentioned gender mimicry where a female looks pretty much exactly like a male. Even genetic markers are not universal as in the example of fishes (and other animals) who can change their sex. So if a classification can only applied to certain species and even then has additional qualifiers (i.e. the sex is only fixed for a specific time period) then it is hardly an universal concept now is it? And this is exactly the point Arete has made, biological concepts only apply within certain limits and are simply not universal. Thank you for confirming that I am wasting my time trying to engage with you.

Maybe I was not quite clear. Recall that Arete established that rigid pigeon holes are rare (or perhaps non-existent) in biology. MigL seemed to object to that and implied that nature has in fact these. He then claimed that all biologists would classify species as male or female. It is not quite clear what he means, as obviously you cannot classify like that, but I assumed he meant that biologists would classify all members in a species rigidly as either male or female. Strangely he also mentioned asexual reproduction (though worms are actually not a good example), where this does not make sense and I have added hermaphrodite species. These two examples already indicate that this categories (male vs female) are clearly not universal even if we just think roughly about certain species. I then added another example indicating that even in species where male and female distinction could work, if you look at, say an individual clownfish and classify it as male, it is possible that some time later due to some influences that individual has then become female. In other words, even it looks rigid from a high (species) level, biology can break these categories we made. Going back to clownfishes, the gonads of functional males has both testicular as well as ovarian tissues. The latter is in immature state but can mature rather quickly to create functional ovaries (based on some neuronal pathways which are only partially explored IIRC). So even if go down deeper into the tissue and cellular level, the distinction between male and female is quite fuzzy as the tissue can change from one to the other. Given all those biological mechanisms and fuzziness it simply does not make sense to even presume that these categories are universal. Rather, they apply within a certain context (and even then often with a given but hopefully acceptable error rate).

Because MigL has implied that categories in nature are rigid: There are claims made that male and female are universal and the examples indicate a) on the species level there are plenty of organism that are not either male or female and that b) even within an individual there are species in which their sex is fluid to some degree. I am not sure what your example was supposed to add to that.

I am not sure whether I should answer ridiculous questions. I have not seen folks waving hands, but I have not idea why it should bother me (in Germany folks often knock on tables). All language is made up, so I am not sure which one you refer to. I am not sure whether we are the same species, as recently I have the sneaking feeling of talking to a chat bot.