Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago#108,958
As you might know, testosterone levels have been falling for something like 50 years. Some have speculated this may be due to environmental contaminants such as birth control accumulating in the water supplies, or plastics like BPA being everywhere around us. Even BPA-free plastics are now being shown to be endocrine disrupters as bad or worse than BPA itself.
Do you think this is playing a role in the increased prevalence of transgenderism? Or even more broadly the LGBT movement?
Certainly social factors play a role in... all things social. But what is the chicken and what is the egg?
Similar questions have been asked about the rise in obesity. When children under one year of age are morbidly obese and not even fully weaned, it's hard to explain it all away as diet and exercise. It seems plausible that similar factors may be at play?
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,219,129
@previous (A)
okay. the rise in homosexuality being reporterd tracks at the same rate as population growth suggests results predicted by statistical modeling would indicate a deviation between trans and homosexual rates of growth overtime wouldn't be explained by cultural acceptance of previously persecuted alt lifestyles. and that could indicate environmental pressures leading to changes in rates of reported incidence. and this hasn't been the case. also, as is normally published in studies such as these there is what is known as error uncertainty and things like how the studies were collected and what kinds of questions are asked can lead to different results. and all studies of voluntary reported self identification such as homosexual or trans have incredibly high uncertainty that may be so high as to make the information entirely anecdotal as opposed to within a statistical certainty low enough to lead to conclusively correlated evidentiary relationships. and the compiled data on trans people in the US is all anecdotal, has no meaningful corollary likelihood of being significant. and so even tracking it against growth rate and homos is entirely anecdotal, and only interesting in how the data is gathered, and if collection methods can be shared to produce better results.
all studies have this info in the documents references, and unless you are looking to go into statistical analysis it's vomit inducingly boring to put much stock in any studies that only suggest, may indicate, or are otherwise used by researchers to improve methods, and point to analytics worth gathering or doing studies on.
and anecdotally, the whole testosterone thing is all coming from people pushing information from these kinds of sources, sources that can't be replicated, and something like 90% of all scientific and peer reviewed results from scientific inquiry have abysmally low repeatability, and more than anything shows major problems in every sector of research when it comes to data collection from experiment.
no single peer reviewed experiment is ever going to be predictive. and why we see a billion junk science articles about breakthroughs is experimental fields all the time and zero follow up from things like m-drive, cold fusion, and more recently the muon-tau, "sterile neutrino" detection, a b-meson statistical anomalies that pointed to possible new discoveries in standard model particle detections which came from the LHC have turned out to have gone below 3 sigma and means whoops. probably not leading to the new theory of everything, which seems to have breakthroughs in everyday. whoops.
which is why I think the wormhole analogous quantum computer results communicating info through a pair of singularities is interesting, but not likely to be leading to any immediate answers about black hole information holography. even Leonard susskind who who is a big proponent of er=epr equivalence is excited, but not piping corks over confirmation of the holographic principle. it's probably not. but like anything, points to new areas of research.
however, a nuclear bomb blowing up in the Nevada desert was absolutely conclusive proof of entirely speculative research, and when in science there is confirmation, like the Higgs boson last decade, when the proof is within the error bars, pop the corks.
till then, probably just ignore junk science articles and wait for them to, say, stop releasing cfcs into the ozone layer. which they did. and now it's fixed for the most part. if bpas turn frogs gay, dont forget, we're not amphibians, and amphibians can change their sex at will like that. were not frogs. and gender is a set of characteristics and include social contrivances, such as pants. and long hair. change the set of characteristics and you have a new set of things to call gender.
it's not math, it's particle physics, it's psychology and biology and these things are not and/or, they are [and]/[or]. they are sets. not facts.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,219,360
@previous (spectacles)
The observations I stated are not controversial. And even if they were, that's not the interesting part of the discussion anyway.
Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that the observations are representative and that you are convinced of that. Namely, that testosterone levels have been decreasing for decades, and that plastics can function as endocrine disrupters. How then would you respond to what I posed in the OP?
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,219,366
@previous (A)
what? lets say for a moment that I'm you mom and that you're convinced that I love.
thats all, I just figured if we're imagining you might be right so I'll argue with you that maybe you just need someone who loves you
to give you a big huge hug, and hug you and hug you and give you attention, and then whisper that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard
anyone ever say to me, you boofgender. how would you respond if I said that? and really meant it, like super hard?
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 50 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,219,412
@1,219,383 (B)
aw. I knew you wanted to kill me. on some level, I always knew you wanted to kill me.
but you didn't. I love you too. but don't tell r04r, I'm still trying to hook that up
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 33 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,219,542
@1,219,540 (spectacles)
OK. Sure. Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that the observations are representative and that you are convinced of that. Namely, that testosterone levels have been decreasing for decades, and that plastics can function as endocrine disrupters. How then would you respond to what I posed in the OP?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,219,548
@previous (spectacles)
I did ask real questions but you responded immaturely. So I instead asked if you could hypothetically engage in conversation and this is your response.
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,219,550
@previous (A)
look, Matt, you already told me it was you. and I answer your questions.
you didn't like my answer. I rewrote a whole huge thing, Matt.
and you didn't like that I disagreed. SO FUCK YOUR DICK HOLE WITH A DRILL?
now you want me to PRETEND the questions are real, and do it agaIn.
FUCK YOUR DRILL HOLE WITH A FINGER
are you literally going to reframe and reask for more and more answers until you are right and OOOO you got me, I'm wrong?
SHUT THE FUCK UP, how about you just TELL ME THE WRONG ANSWERS TO HAVE and you can go back and forth all night until you have s big enough hole in your dick, to get fucked by your own head. cause you just fucked your own head. why Matt? why do you make people do this to you. YOU MAKE PEOPLE TREAT YOU LIKE AN INCOMPETENT. AND THEN YOU TRY AND TROLL THEM MORE.
so, whats the answers your looking for Matt? I answered them. how about you reply to me answers. scholarly. dont you have an mfa?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,219,558
@1,219,550 (spectacles)
1. Everyone is Matt
2. You did not answer my questions.
If I had asked: what does the seemingly constant nature of the speed of light in every frame imply about space and/or time? And then gone on to mention that multiple inferometer experiments are consistent with this, you could've said, "there's no need to assume c is constant in every frame. A variable c combined with length contractions, time dilation, and a fixed preferred background frame gets you to equivalent predictions," then fine. That's a discussion. It's not the discussion I would've been expecting, but it's a perfectly fair alternative. All routes lead to Rome. Fine.
But that's not what happened.
Instead, you chose to throw out evidence and assert a belief against it because it threatened your theory. "But light does arrive at different speeds if we point our inferometers in different directions!"
That's not a discussion and does not answer any questions.
spectacles double-posted this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,219,563
@1,219,558 (A)
what? I thought this was about plastic trash? fine. great, ban worrying about it. hypothetically thsts as good a hypothetical answer as the question which is irrelevant