Academic Freedom and Cancel Culture

[dismalist]

Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

The point must be that it is the other people who get to decide what is best for themselves.

[marshwiggle]

Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Consider two scenarios:

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I am a boy. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I have breast cancer. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

Do both of these make sense? If not, how much due diligence should apply in each case to determine whether this is appropriate?

[smallcleanrat]

marshwiggle, the point I was making is that statistics provide information that informs evaluation of an issue. The evaluation informs decision-making. Valuing accuracy when quoting statistics does matter, which is contrary to what you earlier stated.

Isn't a common criticism of activists against sexual harassment or police brutality that they use misleading statistics to make the issue seem more widespread and systemic than it actually is? Or do they get a pass if they say "So what if the proportion of women who have experienced sexual assault is 1 in 2 or 1 in 2000? The point is it happens."

Also, are you sure that advocates for supporting someone's transition aren't talking primarily about identity and self-expression? People transition to living as the gender opposite to the one they were assigned at birth even without surgery or hormone treatments.

[dismalist]

Think of "puberty blockers" for a moment. Should we have a free market in puberty blockers?

Look at a market in organs as an analogy. The latter half of the 20th century's most ardent free marketeer said no, there shouldn't be such a market. Why? Because its existence would influence the time of death of some, perhaps many, people! The regulation that  has emerged in the US to deal with this problem is voluntary supply with demand determined by survival chance and quality. A market of sorts on which no money changes hands.

Analogously, I would not trust doctors on average to correctly prescribe puberty blockers, each of whom has a different tradeoff between helping patients and making money. This is analogous to death in the sense that a wrong decision is very, very costly to the individual.

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

Edit: spelling

[marshwiggle]

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

A little information on "puberty blockers", from the NHS (UK):

Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) pause the physical changes of puberty, such as breast development or facial hair.

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.

Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

From the age of 16, teenagers who've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones.

These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as:

breast development (caused by taking oestrogen)
breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone)
Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility.

There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment.

And this doesn't even touch the medical consequences of surgery.

[Parasaurolophus]

Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves.

[dismalist]

Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves.

Competition, competition:

I'm sure everybody will remove different books. Of course, there's the web, too.

These are only partial book burnings.

[marshwiggle]

Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves.

I'll see your US example and raise you a Canadian one:

WATERLOO REGION — No "secret or hidden agenda" is behind the Waterloo Region District School Board's plan to review all library materials and remove anything decided to be inappropriate or harmful.

"The board is in fact very forthright in its commitment to equity and human rights and to improving outcomes for all students," said trustee Laurie Tremble. "The last thing our staff or trustees would condone would be censorship and it is unfortunate that the media and others have used inflammatory language to describe this as book banning."

[dismalist]

The technical term is burning, not banning.

Instead, try agreeing on one book. Say, the Bible. But even that didn't work.

This will end badly, but it will end.

[jimbogumbo]

Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Consider two scenarios:

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I am a boy. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I have breast cancer. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

Do both of these make sense? If not, how much due diligence should apply in each case to determine whether this is appropriate?

Neither of those make sense, and neither would happen.

[jimbogumbo]

Think of "puberty blockers" for a moment. Should we have a free market in puberty blockers?

Look at a market in organs as an analogy. The latter half of the 20th century's most ardent free marketeer said no, there shouldn't be such a market. Why? Because its existence would influence the time of death of some, perhaps many, people! The regulation that  has emerged in the US to deal with this problem is voluntary supply with demand determined by survival chance and quality. A market of sorts on which no money changes hands.

Analogously, I would not trust doctors on average to correctly prescribe puberty blockers, each of whom has a different tradeoff between helping patients and making money. This is analogous to death in the sense that a wrong decision is very, very costly to the individual.

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

Edit: spelling

I also don't think "doctors on average" are prescribing puberty blockers. Specialists might, but only after an intense screening protocol over quite some time.

[dismalist]

Think of "puberty blockers" for a moment. Should we have a free market in puberty blockers?

Look at a market in organs as an analogy. The latter half of the 20th century's most ardent free marketeer said no, there shouldn't be such a market. Why? Because its existence would influence the time of death of some, perhaps many, people! The regulation that  has emerged in the US to deal with this problem is voluntary supply with demand determined by survival chance and quality. A market of sorts on which no money changes hands.

Analogously, I would not trust doctors on average to correctly prescribe puberty blockers, each of whom has a different tradeoff between helping patients and making money. This is analogous to death in the sense that a wrong decision is very, very costly to the individual.

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

Edit: spelling

I also don't think "doctors on average" are prescribing puberty blockers. Specialists might, but only after an intense screening protocol over quite some time.

And no doctors want to make money.

[marshwiggle]

Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Consider two scenarios:

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I am a boy. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I have breast cancer. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

Do both of these make sense? If not, how much due diligence should apply in each case to determine whether this is appropriate?

Neither of those make sense, and neither would happen.

Is the self-diagnosis of the issue the nonsensical part, or the self-prescribed treatment, or both? What physician response would be appropriate to both?

[mahagonny]

Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves.

Whether they like them or not is irrelevant. I don't like John Denver's singing much, but I wouldn't hide his recordings from minors.
Freedom of expression in your society at large and what should be in public school libraries that's available to minors, and also available to teachers to assign for reading, are different situations calling for different processes of judgment. How would you like your middle school kid reading the Marquis de Sade?

[Parasaurolophus]

Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves.

Whether they like them or not is irrelevant. I don't like John Denver's singing much, but I wouldn't hide his recordings from minors.
Freedom of expression in your society at large and what should be in public school libraries that's available to minors, and also available to teachers to assign for reading, are different situations calling for different processes of judgment. How would you like your middle school kid reading the Marquis de Sade?

I doubt he would, since he'd find it boring. But at least he'd learn a good reductio against 'natural' arguments against homosexuality: the anus is round, penises are cylindrical, therefore obviously one was made for the other.

But you know what? If he wants to try reading it, he can. I don't have a problem with it. We can talk about it together.