this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
765 points (96.3% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2375 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bblkargonaut@lemmy.world 156 points 3 months ago (7 children)

I like to think that I'm a better critical thinker than most, but I fell for the initial news story about her being trans or intersex and the fight being unfair. Then I saw the pictures of her over the years and as a kid, and I dug deeper into what actually happened and I honestly feel dirty. I've since been unsubbing to a lot YouTubers.

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 75 points 3 months ago

This is called growth. Good on you.

[–] SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip 68 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I have noticed that YouTube by default pushes a lot of right wing-esque stuff. My YouTube recommendations are fucked when I am not logged in, so much misinformation and clickbait all over the place. So I can see why it’s easy to fall for misinformation.

[–] auzy@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

They've also started using a lot of channel names which are totally unrelated to politics. No huge surprise of course that it's the right wing doing stuff like this...

[–] dizzy@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Youtube’s recommendation algo is insane.

I get 2nd amendment nutcases telling me the dems are gonna steal my guns and trans women are gonna rape all my family in public toilets.

I’m British, living in Britain, but I sometimes looking up what the best gun attachments are on call of duty…

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Turn off having it track your browsing history, and subscribe and search to/for stuff you like.

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I do not have that experience at all. Mine is all video games and science. Its based on what you interact with, even if its negative. Engagement is engagement. Even just hovering over a video can result in it being recommended again.

[–] Tenniswaffles@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They literally said it pushes those things when not logged in. So when YouTube doesn't know your tastes it pushes things like that.

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 1 points 3 months ago

Logging in does affect it, but there's many more factors that aren't related to your login status.

[–] 9bananas@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

yeah, no.

thing is: YT/google/the data kraken knows you regardless of wether or not you're logged in.

they track everything from IP, to location (even just approximate based on IP), screen size, browser, OS, and sooo much more.

being logged in makes it easier to track you within a site, but you get tracked regardless.

[–] lustyargonian@lemm.ee 44 points 3 months ago

Good for you. We all have biases, it's best to be aware of it and challenge it from time to time.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Happy you did!

Also, afaik, there are guidelines for trans athletes in most major sports competitions, in terms of testosterone levels etc., to ensure fair play, so this wouldn't matter anyway.

And also, Algeria is officially a Sunni Islam country where gender transition is outlawed.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Check out the podcast "Tested". It's three episodes and goes into the history of testing female athletes to make sure they are "female enough" to compete.

terms of testosterone levels etc.

So why is it if a man has elevated testosterone levels it's allowed for him to have that advantage, but if a woman has elevated testosterone levels that's not?
If we're interested in fair play shouldn't all competitors be tested and those with less testosterone be given more so that they are on an even playing field?

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes or at least organize athletes by testosterone like we do with weight if it's truly that big of a deal. Then men with lower T shouldn't be against men with higher T either.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

if it's truly that big of a deal.

That's the question, is it? I believe in the podcast I mentioned they said the IOC's (flawed) tests only showed an advantage in a few Track and Field events (I think it was mid length runs).

So let's do some proper testing first to see how much of an advantage Testosterone actually gives, it's entirely possible it's irrelevant and we should stop testing for it all together.

If there is something that provides a noticeable advantage then just separating everyone by the "weight class" equivalent would be better than an arbitrary gender division.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Agreed. The book "Delusions of Gender" by Cordelia Fine points out that sexes are generally much more alike than different.

[–] Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Another misconception people have is that trans women are inherently stronger than cis women, which isn't true. I know from anecdotal evidence, that it is extremely difficult for me to open jars now that I've been on estrogen and t blockers for over a year. My t is actually under the normal range for cis women, and usually I have to get my cis sister to open jars because she's stronger than me now.

Also newer studies have shown trans women don't actually have the competitive advantage conservatives say they have.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/olympic-trans-women-ioc-study-rcna148437

[–] Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Would this be different if someone were to transition at a later age (say mid 20s - 30s)? Honest question, trying to learn something here.

[–] Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I do think their muscle would still be significantly reduced by the hormones, but the older someone is the more their body is "set in place." This means any changes will take longer to occur and they may not happen to the degree that they would have if they started younger. So someone starting mid 20s - 30s likely won't have skeletal changes, since that part of their body has already finished growing. (Someone starting as a young teen definitely will have skeletal changes though.)

[–] Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago

It's crazy what an impact hormones have!

Thanks for clarifying :)

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That's what separates is from them...the ability to digest comflicting information and change our opinion.

I went through the same mental shenanigans over the last two weeks.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It’s a great case of how tempting doubt is, and how people will automatically believe that accusations wouldn’t be made if something were not happening, so we have a 55% starting bias to believe “guilty.”

In college I was once the object of a salacious rumor that was 100% fabricated by someone and spread throughout my circles in school. By the time I heard about it, friends-of-friends and the entire faculty in my department had as well. Closer friends said things like “I never bothered to ask you about it because I figured it wasn’t true. And if it was true I didn’t care. Is it true?”

It was very frustrating how ready everyone was to believe it. People not very close to me ALL believed it. To this day I bet some people I know doubt whether I have just been lying this whole time to defend myself. But I know what I did and didn’t do, and I learned that people will absolutely get up one day and decide to manufacture something out of thin air and then spend energy spreading it around as if true.

I no longer think “well something must have happened if there’s this much hubbub about it…”