joined 1 year ago
[–] Streetlights 2 points 2 hours ago

They are not always so distinct, and your definition of sex=gametes is completely arbitrary semantics that only serves to marginalize people.

It's not my definition of course. And the binary nature of mammalian sex "marginalises" no one. Does the binocular vision of mammals marginalise the blind? Mammals have two kidneys but people born with renal agenesis have one or none, and yet no one is arguing that the mammalian renal system "is a spectrum". Why use such obfuscatory language?

Why not describe human locomotion as a spectrum?

Because that would be factually incorrect at every level. Humans are bipedal. Canis lupis is quadropedal. If you describe both as having "spectral locomotive" properties, you have no language to distinguish between them. It is a ludicrous exercise in semantics that adds nothing to the explanatory power of science and only diminishes it.

The essay is not specifically targeted at scientists.

Of course it is "Biology faces a grave threat from “progressive” politics that are changing the way our work is done, delimiting areas of biology that are taboo and will not be funded by the government or published in scientific journals..."

clearly this is not in reference to random joes, but to career sceintists who decide what is funded or published.

You may be shocked to learn that "non-scientists" also read scientific journals and may also care about proper allocation of research funding. I am not a professional (or amateur even) tennis player yet the governance of the sport is of interest to me and many other "non-tennis" players.

It is not always worth having ideas challenged.

Oh no, it is always worth it. JS Mill makes the case for the vital necessity of dissent in 'on liberty' which is far too long to paste here but should he added to anyone's reading list.

i'm not wasting my time with people arguing in bad faith like this article clearly is.

Then why engage? Why profess your desire to remain ignorant of the text? It adds nothing. Simply hold your peace and move on.

[–] Streetlights 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

They contradict themselves in the very same sentence. "nearly every human on earth falls into one of two distinct categories" is just another way of saying "sex is a spectrum

That's not a contradiction because a binary with some exceptions is not, therefore, a spectrum. A spectrum is a continuously varying attribute like height. An individual can move along the height spectrum. There is no continuous variable in mammalian sex; there are only two discrete gametes.

You may as well say humans aren't bipedal because some individuals have one leg or none. But to describe human locomotion as a spectrum would be laughably misleading. And why corrupt the language in this way? Ideology, of course.

deserve to be considered in scientific research.

They are that's why we know about them. Strawman suggesting the authors are implying NOT including them in research.

  1. All behavioral and psychological differences between human males and females are due to socialization.

I very much doubt this is a common statement made by any legitimate scientist.

The essay is not specifically targeted at scientists. They cite examples of blankslate-ism in the media and the idea itself as a theory of mind has been around in philosophy from the likes of John Locke and Descarte.

Good psychologists of course know the effects of evolution and sexual dichotomy on human psychology, but this doesn't always penetrate into society at large.

Given that they opened their article with these two clearly IDEOLOGICAL statements, I see no reason to read any further. The authors need to examine themselves for ideological biases, not accuse everyone else of it.

It's worth a read and it's not terribly long. Always worth to have ideas challenged.

[–] Streetlights 6 points 1 week ago

Men harming ex-partners. Unfortunately not uncommon.

[–] Streetlights 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Well Rishi I was on the fence but fuck me you've sold me.

[–] Streetlights 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Sorry where is the 'neuroscience' in the article?

[–] Streetlights 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh my mistake there then. Rockhoppers are one species that are monogamous for life.

[–] Streetlights 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That doesn't explain why the same couples keep coming back to each other season after season.

[–] Streetlights 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A BTG a day keeps the vatniks at bay.

[–] Streetlights 4 points 1 month ago

10 hours per month? It's a start at least.

[–] Streetlights 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Thanks, I guess it was the part where how this caused "malicious harm" given he didn't reveal any sort of hidden scandal or illegal acitivty but the other user explained it'll result in patients being afraid to access medical care which is beginning to make sense to me. I'm not based in the US, this is all so alien to me.

[–] Streetlights 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thank for taking the time to lay that out for me. I am unable to comprehend the motives, but that at least starts to explain it. Unthinkable.

Dude forgot his hippocratic oath.


Dear Scots, those have been a wonderful couple of days with you. I could not be a happier mayor. You are always welcome to come back to Cologne! #tartanarmy @ScotlandNT #euro2024


Steven Pinker explains the cognitive biases we all suffer from and how they can short-circuit rational thinking and lead us into believing stupid things. Skip to 12:15 to bypass the preamble.


Tl;dr an undergraduate paper last year claiming females hunt just as often as males got picked up by the media and amplified before it was discovered their analysis was deeply flawed and unreliable. Here several anthropologists present a very gracious rebuttal.


There was no group difference in reaction times and accuracy between males and females (using contraception and not). However, within subject analyses revealed that regularly menstruating females performed better during menstruation compared to being in any other phase, with faster reaction times (10ms, p < .01), fewer errors (p < .05) and lower dispersion intra-individual variability (p < .05). In contrast they exhibited slower reaction times (10ms, p < .01) and poorer timing anticipation (p < .01) in the luteal phase, and more errors in the predicted ovulatory phase (p < .01). Self-reported mood, cognitive and physical symptoms were all worst during menstruation (p < .01), and a significant proportion of females felt that their symptoms were negatively affecting their cognitive performance during menstruation on testing day, which was incongruent with their actual performance.


New paper casts doubt on the often reported huge rise in maternal deaths in the United States over the past 20 years. They put the blame firmly on a change in the reporting method.


Rushed through last minute before parliament is dissolved using emergency powers.

Should've been debated in the commons at least.


Was Roger Penrose not completely insane when he proposed his Orch OR theory of the mind? Still doesn't explain the hard problem of consciousness, but a step closer?

submitted 2 months ago by Streetlights to c/skeptic

Excellent essay from Coyne and Maroja that picks apart six widespread examples of biology being corrupted by (often well-intentioned) ideology.


Were the Greens booted out before they could quit? Lorna's properly fuming calling it "an act of political cowardice".

If the opposition put forward a VONC on Humza right now, I'm not sure he'd survive it.

Dan Dennett died today, RIP (
submitted 3 months ago by Streetlights to c/skeptic

Brilliant mind. I was lucky enough to meet him at an invited lecture once and he was nice enough to sign Freedom Evolves for me.

Another horseman falls.


SNP having a great day


There is a lot of disinformation flying around about this. The original myth about Cass "dismissing 98% of all data" started because an activist on twitter read the wrong paper.

Question everything, especially if it agrees with you.

view more: next ›