Prolific "video games make you bad" researcher exposed as planning to refuse to publish his work if it doesn't show video game make you bad + mor

[Dwarvenhobble]

Intersex people? Hardly, unless you really stretch the definitions of the male and female sex to allow almost any traits of the opposite sex.

It entirely depends on the condition.

Sometimes it just means as a male they're shorter and as a woman they're taller.

I have a friend whose 5'3 and he's not intersex. A flatmate at uni was 5'4 and he wasn't intersex. It entirely depends on the specific condition and intersex is a very broad range of conditions.

Neurology is one of the least understood areas in terms of gender differentiation. There's a huge amount of research, and countless trends and tendencies have been identified.... but if you show a neuroscientist a single brain image, they will not be able to determine with much certainty whether it's male or female. There's enormous overlap, even in those areas which show differentiation.

Except Dr Verma's imaging technique and method would allow a far more educated guess. Yes you wouldn't know right away but it would be possible counting the required things to give a pretty good guess.

Why the fuck is that relevant? We're not determining the "standard image". We're describing morphologies that exist.

Except that is what the intersex argument appears to be making that the present approach isn't applicable due to edge cases and must be revised due to them

...We have. The umbrella term "intersex" includes various sub-types which have been identified and scientifically described. And scientists usually don't ascribe them as entirely male or female.

Though usually will define them as male or female in general for ease.

Why would it? You're expecting rebuttal for a fairly uncontroversial study.

The issue isn't any flaw in Verma's research which requires rebuttal. The issue is that you seem to believe the research indicates something that it doesn't, and that Verma never claimed.

Except Dr Verma in the video did claim there was a clear observable difference which was a bigger / more clear pattern than they expected to ever see. Also it is seemingly controversial because people still are unwilling to accept the neurological differences even exist let alone argue over the reason for them.

Right, so your analogy is just someone claiming that male and female are exactly the same thing, which nobody is doing and nobody has said. We're back to strawmanning.

Yet it's seemingly what Anita was doing and has been pushing for said kind of treatment.

 

[Silvanus]

It entirely depends on the condition.

Sometimes it just means as a male they're shorter and as a woman they're taller.

I have a friend whose 5'3 and he's not intersex. A flatmate at uni was 5'4 and he wasn't intersex. It entirely depends on the specific condition and intersex is a very broad range of conditions.

Uhrm, yeah, those people aren't intersex then, so they're irrelevant to the topic. I'm talking about physical traits which are much more strongly linked to the opposite sex: genitalia, testosterone/ oestrogen levels, ovaries/ gonads.

Except Dr Verma's imaging technique and method would allow a far more educated guess. Yes you wouldn't know right away but it would be possible counting the required things to give a pretty good guess.

A "pretty good guess", yeah. And in a sample of a hundred, it would sometimes be wrong.

You can't use that as the definitive test, in order to force people to fit into two categories.

Except that is what the intersex argument appears to be making that the present approach isn't applicable due to edge cases and must be revised due to them

The "present approach" being what, exactly? The argument is that the idea of a strict binary isn't applicable, but researchers & biologists don't use a strict binary; they recognise exceptions.

Though usually will define them as male or female in general for ease.

No, scientists don't tend to just call intersex people male or female "for ease", that's nonsense.

Except Dr Verma in the video did claim there was a clear observable difference which was a bigger / more clear pattern than they expected to ever see. Also it is seemingly controversial because people still are unwilling to accept the neurological differences even exist let alone argue over the reason for them.

Yep, you're still just talking about big differences existing, not a strict and immutable binary. The one doesn't indicate the latter.

Yet it's seemingly what Anita was doing and has been pushing for said kind of treatment.

It was only "seemingly" that in your mind.