Oryx_404, oryx_404@lemmy.today

Instance: lemmy.today
Joined: 2 weeks ago
Posts: 21
Comments: 13

RSS feed

Posts and Comments by Oryx_404, oryx_404@lemmy.today

Another short critique, summed up as “it’s relatively safe to assume that sexual orientation confounded the results in the original paper.”

https://xcancel.com/NeuroSGS/status/1646930422088052736


Bad headline, bad article. Here’s a site with some commentary on this and a related case:

https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/2026/01/25/football-and-transgender-vilification-the-kirralie-smith-cases/

No idea if that site has any particular slant, but it has copies of the rulings:

https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/dennis-v-smith_26.8.25-for-blog.pdf

https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/dennis-v-smith-no-2-for-blog.pdf

Regardless of if anyone was injured, the posts Smith made say “alleged”, and the court case isn’t about those being truthful or not. As the ruling notes,

The ultimate issue is whether the acts or conduct of the Defendant as particularised, amount to unlawful vilification of the Plaintiff pursuant to Section 38S, of the Act.


To be clear, those are mating types, which is the analogue to sex in isogamous species. The claim about the sex binary is limited to only anisogamous species.


Looks like this has been politicized, with the Good Law Project making the case that there’s no plagiarism and this is all about race:

https://xcancel.com/GoodLawProject/status/2082089176107786376

But this looks pretty damning:

You can verify those passages here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49402810_An_analysis_of_the_concept_reflective_practice_and_an_investigation_into_the_development_of_student_teachers%27_reflective_practice_within_the_context_of_action_research

https://www.proquest.com/docview/1784057434

There’s no indication that it’s citing the previous paper, and the quotes exist as shown


Valiant effort. Biggest challenge will be convincing people that it’s not just an ideological trojan horse


Interesting study but it relies on self-reported views and is limited to the question of endorsing political violence, not whether that translates to such violence occurring.


The logic in the image is specious. Surely that’s not serious?

There’s been a string of recent victories for sex-based sports advocates like the IOC splitting up sports by sex, and the answer seems to be increasingly that people think it matters.

Semenya’s response to IOC ruling:

https://time.com/article/2026/04/01/caster-semenya-the-ioc-s-ruling-is-a-disgrace/


The takeaway is that probably, people worry too much about penis size. Women are good at accurately recalling penis size, and express a preference for only slightly above average. There’s also almost no difference between preference in one-night stand vs long-term sizes. Study was limited in demographics, but it was also more about developing a better process. Sadly the Thingiverse file no longer exists.


Got downvoted, probably from people not reading past the title. To be clear: bigger doesn’t mean smarter. Brain-to-body ratio might have more of a case, but otoh grey wolves don’t strike me as dumb.


My forecast: Big win for Rowling. The UK has strong defamation laws, and Amnesty UK depends on government funding. They’re already caving to pressure. The FWS ruling from the post shows UK courts probably wouldn’t agree that Beira’s Place is anti-rights.


RSS feed

Posts by Oryx_404, oryx_404@lemmy.today

Comments by Oryx_404, oryx_404@lemmy.today

Another short critique, summed up as “it’s relatively safe to assume that sexual orientation confounded the results in the original paper.”

https://xcancel.com/NeuroSGS/status/1646930422088052736


Bad headline, bad article. Here’s a site with some commentary on this and a related case:

https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/2026/01/25/football-and-transgender-vilification-the-kirralie-smith-cases/

No idea if that site has any particular slant, but it has copies of the rulings:

https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/dennis-v-smith_26.8.25-for-blog.pdf

https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/dennis-v-smith-no-2-for-blog.pdf

Regardless of if anyone was injured, the posts Smith made say “alleged”, and the court case isn’t about those being truthful or not. As the ruling notes,

The ultimate issue is whether the acts or conduct of the Defendant as particularised, amount to unlawful vilification of the Plaintiff pursuant to Section 38S, of the Act.


To be clear, those are mating types, which is the analogue to sex in isogamous species. The claim about the sex binary is limited to only anisogamous species.


Looks like this has been politicized, with the Good Law Project making the case that there’s no plagiarism and this is all about race:

https://xcancel.com/GoodLawProject/status/2082089176107786376

But this looks pretty damning:

You can verify those passages here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49402810_An_analysis_of_the_concept_reflective_practice_and_an_investigation_into_the_development_of_student_teachers%27_reflective_practice_within_the_context_of_action_research

https://www.proquest.com/docview/1784057434

There’s no indication that it’s citing the previous paper, and the quotes exist as shown


Valiant effort. Biggest challenge will be convincing people that it’s not just an ideological trojan horse


Interesting study but it relies on self-reported views and is limited to the question of endorsing political violence, not whether that translates to such violence occurring.


The logic in the image is specious. Surely that’s not serious?

There’s been a string of recent victories for sex-based sports advocates like the IOC splitting up sports by sex, and the answer seems to be increasingly that people think it matters.

Semenya’s response to IOC ruling:

https://time.com/article/2026/04/01/caster-semenya-the-ioc-s-ruling-is-a-disgrace/


The takeaway is that probably, people worry too much about penis size. Women are good at accurately recalling penis size, and express a preference for only slightly above average. There’s also almost no difference between preference in one-night stand vs long-term sizes. Study was limited in demographics, but it was also more about developing a better process. Sadly the Thingiverse file no longer exists.


Got downvoted, probably from people not reading past the title. To be clear: bigger doesn’t mean smarter. Brain-to-body ratio might have more of a case, but otoh grey wolves don’t strike me as dumb.


My forecast: Big win for Rowling. The UK has strong defamation laws, and Amnesty UK depends on government funding. They’re already caving to pressure. The FWS ruling from the post shows UK courts probably wouldn’t agree that Beira’s Place is anti-rights.


https://xcancel.com/JamesLNuzzo/status/1891781779578925492

This study is a great example of why DOGE is needed.

Anyone over the age of 18 knows these things and you spent time doing this “research” and publishing a paper and now expecting others to read it for any reason other than parody value.

Brilliant.

Before criticizing my research, how about you actually read the paper and explore all the graphs, analyses, and discussion points?

  1. No government funding was received for this project. I completed it entirely unpaid and in my spare time. In fact, because this was the case, I set up a designated crowdfunding account for people to make volunteer donations. Many people who value this research made donations. In fact, on the title page of the paper, just underneath the title, in a section titled “Funding,” it states that that crowdfunding (not a government grant) was used to support this research.

  2. Did you really know that there was a sex difference in grip strength in the earliest years of development? It would be odd for you to know such a thing considering that no one has ever meta-analyzed data prior to age 5, and the one previous meta-analysis that examined kids above the age of 5 included results from only 4 studies. Your certainty about this result is further odd because if you actually look at one of the graphs in the paper, you will see that, although the aggregate data show a sex difference in grip strength favouring boys prior to puberty, some studies show no difference and others show that girls are actually stronger.

  3. Did you really know that the sex difference in grip strength remains stable between ages 5 to 10? Are you sure that you wouldn’t have predicted the size of the sex difference in grip strength to increase or decrease between the ages of 5 and 10?

  4. And what about the narrowing of the sex difference in grip strength at age 11? Did you really know about that prior to this paper? And did you really know the likely reason for that specific result (i.e., girls reaching puberty before boys)?

  5. And what about the finding about sex differences in grip strength being roughly equal across countries (both before and after puberty). Are you 100% certain that you would have predicted that?

  6. Finally, the analysis examined the size of the sex difference in grip strength over the past 60 years. Are you certain that you knew that the size of that sex difference has remained roughly the same each decade from 1960 to now?


https://xcancel.com/datadriven_tdoc/status/2078214837063020674

Good news!

There’s a new paper out that suggests that puberty blockers are associated with a decreased likelihood of mood disorders and suicidality

Bad news!

The paper is so methodologically flawed it would take me the rest of my career to detail them….

I cant understand for the life of me why researchers (whether they be gender critical or trans supportive) can’t nail down a well-designed analysis of routinely collected health data….

these people seriously keep breaking my heart….

the data is there; you can do so much better!


Missing from this paper is any explanation of why the effect occurs, making it unclear if these results would hold up in actual work scenarios or across longer durations. There’s also the matter of the gender-specific math finding, it only appeared when slicing the data by subgroup, so there might be p-hacking involved. Still, worth investigating more.