My researcher spouse says altering images is a huge problem in scientific publications.
I'm a former award-winning high-end digital retoucher. I offer my services in providing a professional opinion on whether flattened image files have been altered. I could probably convincingly alter one myself, but most scientists are not that good at retouching. I could see a lot of giveaways in the Stanford Dailey cited images, beyond duplication.
I'm surprised I have never seen an altered image scandal in the field of economics -- not once. I guess people don't need to photoshop graphs, they just tweak the underlying data. It seems to be reserved for STEM.
The Lee Jussim metaphor actually isn't very good. It is not at all clear that horses are better than mules for plowing. I googled "plowing with horses versus mules" to make sure, and I see that experts would say it is unclear. Horses are fancier, but if your metaphor is "using a thoroughbred for plowing", it works both because that kind of horse is more expensive and because it's worse for plowing.
Of course, saying that to denigrate mules is racist is even crazier. Clearly nobody concerned knows anything about livestock.
Using a-historical claims and an egregious misunderstanding of how biology and language works, trans-exclusionary radical 'feminists', also known as TERFs, frame the fight for women's rights based entirely in opposition to transgender people. Basing their arguments on cherry-picked data, ignoring the adversity trans people face, and misrepresenting accounts of events ... Read all
LOL at "biology and language". My guess is this is how a conversation with the author would go:
Me: Are you "Ry", who summarized the plot of "Adult Human Female" on IMDB?
Ry: That's me.
Me: How does the movie get the language wrong?
Ry: (Adjusts glasses) This "documentary" conflates gender with sex. Sex, which is assigned at birth, is based on biological markers such as chromosomes and external genitalia. In contrast, gender is one's internal sexual identity grounded in socially constructed definitions of "masculinity" and "femininity".
Me: So sex and gender are distinct?
Ry: Obviously.
Me: So, gender-wise, one can identify as male, female...
Ry: And demigender and pangender and genderfluid.
Me: Interesting. So how does the movie get the biology wrong?
Ry: By claiming that transwomen aren't women.
Me: So, transwomen are women? As a sex and as a gender?
Ry: Of course. There's no meaningful distinction between the two groups in the non-transphobic mind.
Me: But didn't you just say that sex and gender are different constructs? The former rooted in biology and the latter in psychosocial identity? Wouldn't this imply that one can identify as a woman without, in fact, being a biological female?
Ry: I see your hood peeking out. Sex is a spectrum! A Spee-K-trrrrrummmmm!
Me: So a transwoman who's "assigned as male at birth" is not male?
Ry: NO! If you say otherwise, you are misgendering her!
Me: How can you "misgender" her by stating her sex? I thought sex and gender were different? And what happens to her chromosomes when she transitions? Can she now give birth?
Ry: We're done. [Takes a picture of Fisk to add to her latest Mastodon toot and stalks away]
Me: [Scratches head, wondering how non-intersexed babies are "assigned" a sex at birth]
My researcher spouse says altering images is a huge problem in scientific publications.
I'm a former award-winning high-end digital retoucher. I offer my services in providing a professional opinion on whether flattened image files have been altered. I could probably convincingly alter one myself, but most scientists are not that good at retouching. I could see a lot of giveaways in the Stanford Dailey cited images, beyond duplication.
I'm surprised I have never seen an altered image scandal in the field of economics -- not once. I guess people don't need to photoshop graphs, they just tweak the underlying data. It seems to be reserved for STEM.
The Lee Jussim metaphor actually isn't very good. It is not at all clear that horses are better than mules for plowing. I googled "plowing with horses versus mules" to make sure, and I see that experts would say it is unclear. Horses are fancier, but if your metaphor is "using a thoroughbred for plowing", it works both because that kind of horse is more expensive and because it's worse for plowing.
Of course, saying that to denigrate mules is racist is even crazier. Clearly nobody concerned knows anything about livestock.
Cups of hemlock, so to speak, never go out of style.
I don't get this reference but I like how cryptic it sounds
The intellectual independence of Socrates hadn't gone over well, either.
God, how I (nonviolently) hate all these infantile Assholes.
I did my own research on 'Adult Human Female' and found the IMDB page. It's a sight to behold https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23844954/?ref_=ttpl_pl_tt
IMDbPro
Adult Human Female (2022)
Using a-historical claims and an egregious misunderstanding of how biology and language works, trans-exclusionary radical 'feminists', also known as TERFs, frame the fight for women's rights based entirely in opposition to transgender people. Basing their arguments on cherry-picked data, ignoring the adversity trans people face, and misrepresenting accounts of events ... Read all
LOL at "biology and language". My guess is this is how a conversation with the author would go:
Me: Are you "Ry", who summarized the plot of "Adult Human Female" on IMDB?
Ry: That's me.
Me: How does the movie get the language wrong?
Ry: (Adjusts glasses) This "documentary" conflates gender with sex. Sex, which is assigned at birth, is based on biological markers such as chromosomes and external genitalia. In contrast, gender is one's internal sexual identity grounded in socially constructed definitions of "masculinity" and "femininity".
Me: So sex and gender are distinct?
Ry: Obviously.
Me: So, gender-wise, one can identify as male, female...
Ry: And demigender and pangender and genderfluid.
Me: Interesting. So how does the movie get the biology wrong?
Ry: By claiming that transwomen aren't women.
Me: So, transwomen are women? As a sex and as a gender?
Ry: Of course. There's no meaningful distinction between the two groups in the non-transphobic mind.
Me: But didn't you just say that sex and gender are different constructs? The former rooted in biology and the latter in psychosocial identity? Wouldn't this imply that one can identify as a woman without, in fact, being a biological female?
Ry: I see your hood peeking out. Sex is a spectrum! A Spee-K-trrrrrummmmm!
Me: So a transwoman who's "assigned as male at birth" is not male?
Ry: NO! If you say otherwise, you are misgendering her!
Me: How can you "misgender" her by stating her sex? I thought sex and gender were different? And what happens to her chromosomes when she transitions? Can she now give birth?
Ry: We're done. [Takes a picture of Fisk to add to her latest Mastodon toot and stalks away]
Me: [Scratches head, wondering how non-intersexed babies are "assigned" a sex at birth]
i finally decided to check you out
only to see you're a moron
bye!