You’re being rude. All the guy is saying is that it might affect data.
Does that make them a transphobe to say that male genetics has a higher chance for colon cancer and having it be tracked as a woman would dilute/fog up the data?
Science and data are objective. This guy just cares about numbers, not your sex and gender. Just the numbers of it.
Ironic that you’re defending a transphobe from that lemmy instance.
Yes, they are a transphobe. I read a dozen of their comments before making that conclusion. They are hiding behind a lie, it doesn’t fool me. I suspect you’re seeing what you want to see because you too are obsessed with strangers birth genitals
I’d argue it simply makes them a bad data scientist. Biology cares not for the categories we create to explain it, and the purpose of categorization is to make sense of what’s already in the world, not to prescribe how it should be. Exceptions exist everywhere, not just in trans people. If your modeling of the data is inaccurate because you only have a binary categorization of sex, that categorization is to blame, not the people who the data represents.
So ultimately, in medical studies, perhaps it’s important to note how you categorized your subjects’ sex, how that relates to the mechanisms of what you’re studying, and perhaps studying trans people’s data further can provide more insights e.g. how hormones affect a condition. Science and data is reliant on the narratives we use to inspect and describe it, and the less of our societal baggage we impose on that process, the better.
You’re being rude. All the guy is saying is that it might affect data.
Does that make them a transphobe to say that male genetics has a higher chance for colon cancer and having it be tracked as a woman would dilute/fog up the data?
Science and data are objective. This guy just cares about numbers, not your sex and gender. Just the numbers of it.
Ironic that you’re defending a transphobe from that lemmy instance.
Yes, they are a transphobe. I read a dozen of their comments before making that conclusion. They are hiding behind a lie, it doesn’t fool me. I suspect you’re seeing what you want to see because you too are obsessed with strangers birth genitals
Not anymore they’re not.
Did they get the ban hammer? ❤️
Big time!
Thanks for all you do!
De nada
I’d argue it simply makes them a bad data scientist. Biology cares not for the categories we create to explain it, and the purpose of categorization is to make sense of what’s already in the world, not to prescribe how it should be. Exceptions exist everywhere, not just in trans people. If your modeling of the data is inaccurate because you only have a binary categorization of sex, that categorization is to blame, not the people who the data represents.
So ultimately, in medical studies, perhaps it’s important to note how you categorized your subjects’ sex, how that relates to the mechanisms of what you’re studying, and perhaps studying trans people’s data further can provide more insights e.g. how hormones affect a condition. Science and data is reliant on the narratives we use to inspect and describe it, and the less of our societal baggage we impose on that process, the better.