CharonY

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.

Not sure, I do not teach imaginary labs. All my students are actually real people.

More likely introductory textbooks where simple basic concepts are explained. The more you learn the more specific your definitions become. What you do now is akin to me making grand claims regarding GR based on what little introduction to physics I might remember. Also note that a claim that a textbook refers to a certain concept still does not make it an universal concept in biology. I am not sure what your overall claim here is. Sex dimorphisms exist, but they are not a universal concept. Heck, sexual reproduction is not an universal concept. As we can find exceptions for basically anything we need to make case-by-case distinctions whenever they become relevant. If you have the rigid idea in your head that every species has two sexes, and try to apply to every species on earth you obviously will end up with many with categorizations that simply won't follow the actual biology (I mean, good luck distinguishing female from male snails).

Studies have also been shown that if you present folks with images of folks looking like themselves, they are more willing to assume that they need support because they had a stroke of bad luck, whereas if you show images of folks different from them they are more likely to assume that they are underserving. Well and some of them pay a whooping $750 in income taxes.

This is also wrong. It would ignore hermaphrodite species as well as species that are able to change their sex. Also how do classify a species according to their sex? That only works on individuals? If we move away from animals it gets even trickier. Also may I note that it is weird that you contradict yourself in the same sentence and then just ignore that? So by far not an universal concept that can be applied the same way to all species. Also, you are aware that the species concept is also a human construct (ring species, microbial concept of species etc.)? As Arete and I have said many times here, the use of such concepts is often useful , but nature does not really care about our neat categories. So even if such a seemingly strict category such as species is not really universal, why would you expect to find many universal concepts in biology to begin with? And this is also wrong of course as there are many, many (animal) species were there are barely any outward sex markers and then there are animals who use camouflage to appear like the different gender. And here is another strawman. No one said that there are no gender dimorphisms. Just that in nature these differences are not as rigid and universal as you think they are. Assuming that biology follows rigid made-up structures and force your assumptions on your observations would be bad science, not following the evidence. And obviously we are again on the presumed issue of enforced speech and I would really like to see some evidence here.

For some context, I have been working in North American universities for quite a bit more than a decade (and in Europe before that). In that time only one student made a request of using a different name, because they transitioned but the enrolment was still under their old name. There was also a faculty in a different department who transitioned and wanted to make their colleagues aware of the situation in a rather thoughtful email. Meeting either of them post-transitioning I would not even have thought or knew about it (paperwork notwithstanding). Out of curiosity I occasionally asked colleagues from different universities across North America (and Europe) and so far not a single person across perhaps a dozen or so universities have even heard of a single case of these alternative pronouns being used. The only gender neutral pronoun that is being used is "they" but that one has been on and off in the English language for hundred of years so that is rather easy. But if even stereotypical "woke" university students are not using it at all (much less excessively) why is the internet filled with outrage about these pronouns? One important thing to understand is that it is actually part of the moral outrage machinery of our right wing. It is somewhat connected to the religious right, whose influence seems to be waning (or at least perceived to do so). In order to bolster their influence they often create these moral outrages (other examples include homosexuality, then gay marriages, another current one is critical race theory). The tactic is usually the same, misrepresent the situation (if you use the wrong pronoun you will be put in jail, folks will be allowed to marry their pets, CRT is about feeling ashamed being white etc.) and create enough buzz that makes people fight over these strawmen, rather than addressing the actual reality of things.

Exhale valves are *bad*. If you are unknowingly infected, it allows you to freely spread the virus around. N95 masks without valves but worn tightly, i.e. air enters and escapes exclusively through the material work very well to reduce risk.