ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Reply
Old 1st August 2020, 05:18 AM   #841
Sherkeu
Graduate Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 1,490
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
Why do you think CNN can say men, not penis havers?
Report them. How insensitive to to ladies who have a penis!!
Do their lady erections not count?
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 07:11 AM   #842
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
Medical professionals themselves are immune because they need to speak in science to do their jobs. There is NO clinical trial that is 'woke' in how it seeks out female participants.
But it seems that they are to speak differently to the public at large so that there will be 2 vocabularies in play so that no one need be de-legitimized of their chosen gender/sex identity.
It's a direct quote from The American Cancer Society's official guidelines:

Quote:
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation ).
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 07:21 AM   #843
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
Why do you think CNN can say men, not penis havers?Attachment 42768
CNN is a private institution that can use whatever language they want.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 08:22 AM   #844
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
CNN is a private institution that can use whatever language they want.
The study quoted says men https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...?resultClick=1
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 08:26 AM   #845
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
That would explain why, in both cases, CNN allowed the scientists to take the lead in what language they used.

That said, you do appear to have linked to a different paper entirely.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 1st August 2020 at 08:28 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 08:34 AM   #846
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That would explain why, in both cases, CNN allowed the scientists to take the lead in what language they used.

That said, you do appear to have linked to a different paper entirely.
Precise language doesn't seem all that important then

The study was directly linked from this CNN article:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/healt...lth/index.html
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 08:39 AM   #847
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Also, the American Cancer Society who the cervix study we're discussing came from seem to think only men can get prostate cancer:Screenshot_20200801-164623.jpg

Last edited by Manger Douse; 1st August 2020 at 08:41 AM.
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 08:45 AM   #848
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
Precise language doesn't seem all that important then
Firstly, did you read the study? It was a study of, specifically, 38 cisgender men. What is imprecise about using the word "men" in that context?

Secondly, I'm not the person who is mocking medical professionals for the terminology they use. I'm the one who's finding it vaguely amusing that people who no doubt consider themselves generally pro-science are going down the "hur-de-hur, look at these woke libtards" route when the science in question uses precise and accurate language that doesn't match their particular biased bugbear of choice.

Quote:
The study was directly linked from this CNN article:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/healt...lth/index.html
Well, that's not what you posted a cap of in post #840.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 08:46 AM   #849
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
Also, the American Cancer Society who the cervix study we're discussing came from seem to think only men can get prostate cancer:Attachment 42770
A) that's not what the picture you've attached says, and B) if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with them.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 08:54 AM   #850
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Firstly, did you read the study? It was a study of, specifically, 38 cisgender men. What is imprecise about using the word "men" in that context?
Becuause women can have penises too. I don't see cis mentioned in that study - do you have full access to it?


Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Secondly, I'm not the person who is mocking medical professionals for the terminology they use. I'm the one who's finding it vaguely amusing that people who no doubt consider themselves generally pro-science are going down the "hur-de-hur, look at these woke libtards" route when the science in question uses precise and accurate language that doesn't match their particular biased bugbear of choice.
I'm not mocking anyone - I'm questioning if such a precise language is necessary why didn't they use penis havers


Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Well, that's not what you posted a cap of in post #840.
I beg your pardon - I thought I attached an image from the semen study

Last edited by Manger Douse; 1st August 2020 at 08:57 AM.
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 08:56 AM   #851
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
A) that's not what the picture you've attached says, and B) if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with them.
It says the most common form of cancer for men is prostate cancer, not the most common form of cancer for prostate havers is prostate cancer. I don't actually have a problem with the language used, I just thought you might have
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 09:03 AM   #852
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,253
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Secondly, I'm not the person who is mocking medical professionals for the terminology they use. I'm the one who's finding it vaguely amusing that people who no doubt consider themselves generally pro-science are going down the "hur-de-hur, look at these woke libtards" route when the science in question uses precise and accurate language that doesn't match their particular biased bugbear of choice.
The only bias I've seen so far is those medical professionals' differing definitions of "male" and "female", as was linked to above, perhaps you would like to comment on that? Especially since you seem to be so in favour of these - what you consider to be "precise and accurate" - definitions.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 09:53 AM   #853
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
Becuause women can have penises too.
How is that relevant to those 38 specific men who were the subject of that study?

Quote:
I'm not mocking anyone[...]
I didn't say you were.

[quote] - I'm questioning if such a precise language is necessary why didn't they use penis havers

Feel free to ask them.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 09:57 AM   #854
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
It says the most common form of cancer for men is prostate cancer, not the most common form of cancer for prostate havers is prostate cancer.
And? That's not saying what you claimed it said - that only men can get prostate cancer.

Tell, me - if I say that the most common cause of death amongst obese people in having a heart attack, am I saying that only obese people have heart attacks? You're being silly and illogical in your desperate flailing to try to engineer some kind of gotcha.

Quote:
I don't actually have a problem with the language used, I just thought you might have
Why?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 10:02 AM   #855
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
How is that relevant to those 38 specific men who were the subject of that study?
Because women with penises could unwittingly spread covid19 because of the imprecise language of the study and way its reported

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
- I'm questioning if such a precise language is necessary why didn't they use penis havers

Feel free to ask them.
You're the one saying such language is very important - why aren't you asking them?
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 10:05 AM   #856
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And? That's not saying what you claimed it said - that only men can get prostate cancer.
It only mentioned men - is precise language important or not?


Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Tell, me - if I say that the most common cause of death amongst obese people in having a heart attack, am I saying that only obese people have heart attacks? You're being silly and illogical in your desperate flailing to try to engineer some kind of gotcha.



Why?
I'd say you were using imprecise language
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 10:18 AM   #857
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The only bias I've seen so far is those medical professionals' differing definitions of "male" and "female", as was linked to above, perhaps you would like to comment on that? Especially since you seem to be so in favour of these - what you consider to be "precise and accurate" - definitions.
Quite - I'm most intrigued as to why it seems only one half of the population needs such precise, granular terminology
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 10:48 AM   #858
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
Because women with penises could unwittingly spread covid19 because of the imprecise language of the study and way its reported
Are you genuinely concerned about this, or are you still trying to engineer yourself that gotcha?

Quote:
You're the one saying such language is very important - why aren't you asking them?
I'm the one who is mildly amused by the anti-science stance that some of the supposedly critical thinkers in this thread have, probably unwittingly, taken.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 10:49 AM   #859
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
It only mentioned men - is precise language important or not?
What's imprecise about referring to 38 men as men?

Quote:
I'd say you were using imprecise language
What's imprecise about it?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 10:54 AM   #860
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Are you genuinely concerned about this, or are you still trying to engineer yourself that gotcha?
You're the one who has expressed concern - I'm just trying to understand whether that concern is justified or not - have you spoken to the American Cancer Society yet?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post

I'm the one who is mildly amused by the anti-science stance that some of the supposedly critical thinkers in this thread have, probably unwittingly, taken.
What has that to do with me?
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 11:00 AM   #861
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
You're the one who has expressed concern - I'm just trying to understand whether that concern is justified or not - have you spoken to the American Cancer Society yet?
I've expressed concern about anti-science sentiment. I'm generally of the opinion that this is not a good thing.

Quote:
What has that to do with me?
**** knows. You're the one who started replying to me. I was quite happily ignoring you entirely until you decided to try to oh-so-cleverly trap me into a gotcha.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 11:04 AM   #862
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
What's imprecise about referring to 38 men as men?
As I said, it ignores that women can have penises too


Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
What's imprecise about it?
Because anyone can have a heart-attack. If your job is warning society as whole on the dangers of heart attacks, Only mentioning obesity seems a foolish way of doing so
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 11:09 AM   #863
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I've expressed concern about anti-science sentiment. I'm generally of the opinion that this is not a good thing.
So you've challenged the language in the semen study ?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post

**** knows. You're the one who started replying to me. I was quite happily ignoring you entirely until you decided to try to oh-so-cleverly trap me into a gotcha.
All I've done is challenge your claim that such precise terms are necessary and given you counter examples from scientists who didn't feel the need for such granular language

Last edited by Manger Douse; 1st August 2020 at 11:14 AM.
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 12:24 PM   #864
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,224
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
It says the most common form of cancer for men is prostate cancer, not the most common form of cancer for prostate havers is prostate cancer. I don't actually have a problem with the language used, I just thought you might have
Loving your work!
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2020, 11:25 PM   #865
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,253
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I've expressed concern about anti-science sentiment. I'm generally of the opinion that this is not a good thing.
"anti-science sentiment"

That definition of "female" you've found on that website is circular, which makes it straight up pseudoscientific and not scientific. Furthermore, the fact that only "female" gets redefined circularly but "male" retains its scientific definition clearly shows that this change is not driven by scientific accuracy or precision but by a desire to accommodate certain ideological preferences. That is anti-science sentiment.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 01:19 AM   #866
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
As I said, it ignores that women can have penises too
If I were to say that my sister were a woman, then would I be ignoring the fact that some women who are not my sister have penises? You're being very silly in order to try to trip me up in some way.

You might want to take a step back and think about what you're actually trying to accomplish with this conversation and why.

Quote:
Because anyone can have a heart-attack. If your job is warning society as whole on the dangers of heart attacks, Only mentioning obesity seems a foolish way of doing so
My job is not warning society as a whole on the dangers of heart attacks. My job, in that hypothetical, was reporting on what the biggest dangers are to obese people.

Similarly, the job of the people conducting that study of 38 people was to report the relevant data about those 38 people.

Seriously, take a deep breath, take a step back, stop giving knee-jerk responses in the hope that you'll at some point be able to go "Ha! I've tricked you into saying something that I can twist as being hypocritical!" and just have a think about what you're saying.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 01:23 AM   #867
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
So you've challenged the language in the semen study ?
Look, if you're really determined to go for this gotcha, then I'll respectfully suggest that a better tactic would be to respond to opinions that I've expressed, rather than keep harping on this pseudo-"when did you stop beating your wife?" I'm not 8, and I'm not going to go for it. And even if I did, then what would you actually have "won"? You'd have managed to trick me into saying something that both you and I know isn't what I think and wasn't what I meant. So...congratulations?

Quote:
All I've done is challenge your claim that such precise terms are necessary and given you counter examples from scientists who didn't feel the need for such granular language
Well, since I've never said that and twice said that that's not what I'm doing, then perhaps you can start to see where you're going wrong.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 05:33 AM   #868
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If I were to say that my sister were a woman, then would I be ignoring the fact that some women who are not my sister have penises? You're being very silly in order to try to trip me up in some way.
You're talking about one person, your sister - not a group of people as a whole and I assume this isn't for a scientific paper or news article where you say more precise language is important


Quote:
My job is not warning society as a whole on the dangers of heart attacks. My job, in that hypothetical, was reporting on what the biggest dangers are to obese people.

Similarly, the job of the people conducting that study of 38 people was to report the relevant data about those 38 people.
The biggest danger of transmitting covid via semen is from penis havers, not men - why did they only mention men if precise language is so important?

I've snipped out the parts of your post I feel go against rule 12
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 05:36 AM   #869
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Look, if you're really determined to go for this gotcha, then I'll respectfully suggest that a better tactic would be to respond to opinions that I've expressed, rather than keep harping on this pseudo-"when did you stop beating your wife?" I'm not 8, and I'm not going to go for it. And even if I did, then what would you actually have "won"? You'd have managed to trick me into saying something that both you and I know isn't what I think and wasn't what I meant. So...congratulations?



Well, since I've never said that and twice said that that's not what I'm doing, then perhaps you can start to see where you're going wrong.
Is precise language such "cervix havers" necessary or not?
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 06:48 AM   #870
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,532
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I honestly don't know what this push-back against medical professionals using precise terminology is all about (well, other than knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children!" transphobia), but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing.
Why are they using "precise" language? Is it because they need to be precise? No, it isn't. People are not confused about who does and does not have a cervix, and people are not confused about the fact that only people with a cervix can get cervical cancer. All of these things are obvious and generally known, and if for some reason you don't know who does or does not have a cervix, then the use of "precise" language in this case doesn't actually serve to inform.

No, that wasn't "precise" in order to avoid confusion. It was "precise" in order to avoid offense.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 07:14 AM   #871
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,374
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
People are not confused about who does and does not have a cervix, and people are not confused about the fact that only people with a cervix can get cervical cancer. All of these things are obvious and generally known, and if for some reason you don't know who does or does not have a cervix, then the use of "precise" language in this case doesn't actually serve to inform.
I'm afraid the fraction of individuals with a cervix who don't know what it is or what it does may be somewhat higher than anyone here (on this fairly science-minded forum) may've guessed.

https://twitter.com/pcwhf/status/875684821640589313
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd August 2020 at 07:20 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 07:30 AM   #872
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
You're talking about one person, your sister
And the study in question was talking about 38 people. See how that works?

Quote:
The biggest danger of transmitting covid via semen is from penis havers, not men - why did they only mention men if precise language is so important?
The study was of 38 people.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 07:32 AM   #873
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
Is precise language such "cervix havers" necessary or not?
The scientists in that particular case evidently thought it was the best language to use. I'm the one arguing that laymen and non-experts probably shouldn't be dictating to scientists and experts what language they should use in their fields.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 07:37 AM   #874
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And the study in question was talking about 38 people. See how that works?



The study was of 38 people.
What did all those people have in common?
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 07:44 AM   #875
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The scientists in that particular case evidently thought it was the best language to use. I'm the one arguing that laymen and non-experts probably shouldn't be dictating to scientists and experts what language they should use in their fields.
Yet the American Cancer Society doesn't think such language is necessary when talking about prostate havers - I'm trying to understand, from a scientific perspective, whats the difference is?

From d4m10n's link it would seem using such precise terminology could be harmful
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 07:50 AM   #876
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why are they using "precise" language?
Feel free to ask them. The authors' names are on the guidelines, which I linked upthread. Or you can make assumptions and have a tantrum based on those assumptions, if you feel that's a more productive use of your time.

But bear in mind, before you get yourself too worked up, that there are other instances of the article being precise about the meaning of the terms it is using. For example:

Quote:
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation ).
That's the first sentence. The very first thing it does is identify the American Cancer Society, and make clear that it will be abbreviated as "ACS". This is despite the fact that the guidelines are from the American Cancer Society, are published in the American Cancer Society's journal, and make clear in the title that they are from the American Cancer Society. Anybody reading the guidelines should already be well aware that they are from the American Cancer Society and, indeed, that that is abbreviated to "ACS".

It then identifies that human papillomavirus is abbreviated to "HPV". These guidelines are specifically for clinicians, published in a journal for clinicians, specifically clinicians in a field relevant to HPV testing. So everybody reading the guidelines should already be well aware of what "HPV" means.

It then goes on to explain what the term "cotesting" means despite, again, the fact that these are guidelines specifically for clinicians, published in a journal for clinicians, specifically clinicians in a field relevant to HPV testing.

But, for some reason, it's only the precision and clarity of "individuals with a cervix" that has people clutching their pearls because of an assumption that they're trying to (shock horror gasp!) "avoid offense" (how dare they!?!?!?!).
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 07:51 AM   #877
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
What did all those people have in common?
That they were men, apparently.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 07:56 AM   #878
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,358
Originally Posted by Manger Douse View Post
Yet the American Cancer Society doesn't think such language is necessary when talking about prostate havers - I'm trying to understand, from a scientific perspective, whats the difference is?
Feel free to ask them. I'm the one arguing that laymen and non-experts probably shouldn't be dictating to scientists and experts what language they should use in their fields.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 08:01 AM   #879
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That they were men, apparently.
But some women produce semen too - such a woman might read this study or how it was reported on CNN and be mistaken that they can't transmit covid 19 sexually because they're women, not penis havers.
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2020, 08:04 AM   #880
Manger Douse
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Feel free to ask them. I'm the one arguing that laymen and non-experts probably shouldn't be dictating to scientists and experts what language they should use in their fields.
I might well do - as d4m10ns link shows, such precise medical terminology could lead to people dieing
Manger Douse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.