←back to thread

490 points Bostonian | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.077s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[] No.42179830[source]
I want to be sympathetic to Singal, whose writing always seems to generate shitstorms disproportionate to anything he's actually saying, and whose premise in this piece I tend to agree with (as someone whose politics largely line up with those of the outgoing editor in chief, I've found a lot of what SciAm has posted to be cringe-worthy and destructive).

But what is he on about here?

Or that the normal distribution—a vital and basic statistical concept—is inherently suspect? No, really: Three days after the legendary biologist and author E.O. Wilson died, SciAm published a surreal hit piece about him in which the author lamented "his dangerous ideas on what factors influence human behavior."

(a) The (marked!) editorial is in no way a refutation of the concept of the normal distribution.

(b) It's written by a currently-publishing tenured life sciences professor (though, clearly, not one of the ones Singal would have chosen --- or, to be fair, me, though it's not hard for me to get over that and confirm that she's familiar with basic statistics).

(c) There's absolutely nothing "surreal" about taking Wilson to task for his support of scientific racism; multiple headline stories have been written about it, in particular his relationship with John Philippe Rushton, the discredited late head of the Pioneer Fund.

It's one thing for Singal to have culturally heterodox† views on unsettled trans science and policy issues††, another for him to dip his toes into HBD-ism. Sorry, dude, there's a dark stain on Wilson's career. Trying to sneak that past the reader, as if it was knee-jerk wokeism, sabotages the credibility of your own piece.

Again, the rest of this piece, sure. Maybe he's right. The Jedi thing in particular: major ugh. But I don't want to have to check all of his references, and it appears that one needs to.

term used advisedly

†† this is what Singal is principally known for

replies(8): >>42180850 #>>42181326 #>>42181738 #>>42183745 #>>42183752 #>>42183888 #>>42188366 #>>42193594 #
taeric ◴[] No.42180850[source]
Agreed fully on the JEDI stuff. I was somewhat hoping it was from an April first issue. That was bad.

And I thought I recognized the name. I really do not understand how trans debate has come to dominate some online discourse.

I thought the complaint on the normal distribution was supposed to be claims that many things are not normally distributed? Which, isn't wrong, but is a misguided reason to not use the distribution?

replies(4): >>42181421 #>>42181639 #>>42183741 #>>42189050 #
blessede ◴[] No.42181639[source]
> And I thought I recognized the name. I really do not understand how trans debate has come to dominate some online discourse.

Much of it is pushback against widespread ideological capture, and in particular the authoritarian idea that everyone else has to change and restrict their behavior to accommodate increasingly absurd and harmful requests from an overly demanding identity group.

replies(2): >>42181912 #>>42196024 #
giraffe_lady ◴[] No.42181912[source]
What is the group demanding that is "over" what you would consider appropriate? How do their demands restrict your behavior?

Personally I've never noticed trans people and their push for rights & recognition having any impact on my life whatsoever. And I say this as a devout member of a rigorous and conservative religious tradition.

replies(10): >>42181986 #>>42183134 #>>42183584 #>>42183690 #>>42184059 #>>42185006 #>>42185376 #>>42185608 #>>42185956 #>>42188552 #
blessede ◴[] No.42181986[source]
Many demands, but probably the most egregious is the insistence that males be incarcerated in women's prisons if they say they are women. Several states now have policy that enables this, and female prisoners have been sexually assaulted, raped and even impregnated as a result of this.

More generally, this graphic has an astute depiction of the problem: https://i.ibb.co/ZcMWLvM/no.jpg

replies(2): >>42182021 #>>42185513 #
giraffe_lady ◴[] No.42182021[source]
Is sexual assault in prison otherwise a particular concern of yours? I understand it's a massive issue affecting hundreds of thousands of incarcerated people, is activism on that broader issue how you came to be aware of this? Do you have a connection to any prisoner advocacy groups that have policy recommendations on this? I assume the sexual violence outcomes for trans women in mens prisons isn't very wonderful either.

I can't relate to the comic. like I said I have not really felt personally affected by trans people at all on any level ever.

replies(1): >>42182142 #
blessede[dead post] ◴[] No.42182142[source]
[flagged]
sofixa[dead post] ◴[] No.42182993[source]
[flagged]
nradov ◴[] No.42183616[source]
You can find a list of trans athletes in women's sports here. I can't vouch for the site's accuracy or completeness, just providing a source for those who want to do further research.

https://www.shewon.org/

replies(1): >>42183824 #
1. sofixa ◴[] No.42183824[source]
The inclusion of golf and poker makes me think this website isn't really concerned about women.
replies(1): >>42183916 #
2. fonfont ◴[] No.42183916[source]
These are still examples of males imposing themselves on what are supposed to be women's competitions. Every single one of these cases highlights an unwanted male intrusion.
replies(1): >>42184332 #
3. HideousKojima ◴[] No.42184332[source]
Also, given that biological males dominate even for non-physical sports and esports like chess (talented women like Judit Polgar notwithstanding) or Starcraft, a biological male playing in a woman's-only league is a probably an unfair advantage even then.
replies(1): >>42188681 #
4. umanwizard ◴[] No.42188681{3}[source]
I don’t really have a strong opinion one way or the other about your overall point, but I just want to point out for clarity:

Examples like Judit Polgar (who was around the top 10 players in the world at her peak) do indeed prove that chess is nothing like (physical) sports in this way. In physical sports like basketball, soccer, etc. the best women in the world can’t compete against even moderately athletic amateur men. A famous example is the fact that the US women’s national soccer team practices against young teenage boys (and routinely loses). In chess it would be like if the best woman was rated 1800 or something.

This isn’t meant to disparage women in sports — they really do have a categorically different kind of body from men, and pushing those bodies to their limits is just as impressive as it is for men. But they don’t appear to have categorically different kinds of brain, at least insofar as it matters for chess skill.