• TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That by not being ridiculously overtly bigoted, they have actually interrogated and rejected their own bigotry. The former is basic and mostly relies on social conditioning. The latter requires reading history and people who are criticizing things with which you may identify and therefore take very personally. The latter is not taught in school and school does not provide the tools (outside of literacy) to do so, so it’s a difficult, painful, abd regrettably rare thing to see, usually requiring sone trauma to change.

    • CoinOperatedBoi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Going through the process of discovering I was trans and surrounding myself with trans people really made me re-examine how little work I’d done on issues of race, among other things. So many of the little passive aggressive things I found myself getting annoyed at cis people doing, I also found myself doing to people of color. Nothing particularly awful, but definitely inconsiderate.

  • potcandan@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always think about when I was taught about taste and the human tongue back in grade school, they had these diagrams about zones on the tongue corresponding to sweet, sour, bitter, etc. like a “taste map”. I’m not sure how many generations were taught about it but turns out it just isn’t true at all. So, not like it’s important but you got a lot of misinformed folks out there in regards to taste lol

    • Swintoodles@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That always confused me as a child, since it was super easy to just test it for yourself. Turned out salt tasted salty regardless of where on your tongue it was, the same for the rest of the flavors.

      • potcandan@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup I remember thinking to myself at the time that I must be tasting incorrectly or somehow my tongue is different from everyone else lol.

    • AnagrammadiCodeina@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      From: https://www.bbc.com/sport/61346517

      *Tucker: When boys reach the age of 13-14, things start to change physically and we see increased muscle mass, bone density; [it] changes the shape of the skeleton, changes the heart and the lung, haemoglobin levels, and all of those things are significant contributors to performance.

      Lowering the testosterone has some effect on those systems, but it’s not complete, and so for the most part, whatever the biological differences are that were created by testosterone persist even in the presence of testosterone reduction - or, if I put that differently, even after testosterone levels are lowered.

      It leaves behind a significant portion of what gives males sporting performance advantages over females.*

      So i guess it depends on when the transition happens?

      • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah. There’s a million studies that look at isolated physical traits, but mostly have one of two common problems. 1) they are often written by people with an explicitly anti trans inclusion bias and 2) they look at physical traits in isolation without attempting to quantify if and how those traits apply to sports.

        If trans women can out perform cis women, it only takes one to set a women’s world record, yet that just doesn’t happen. There are often articles claiming this has happened, but when you look closer, it turns out that they’re talking about age/regional/federation specific records that are mis presented as world records.

        If trans women out perform cis women, we should expect to see them more likely to end with podium finishes than the cis women they’re competing with. It should be pretty trivial to gather the data and show that advantage. But it doesn’t happen, because the truth is, trans women are on average, more likely to under perform compared to cis women.

        No study that looks at a trait in isolation and makes educated guesses about the effect of hormone replacement on that trait is ever going to tell you how real world sporting outcomes will be impacted.

        The only thing that will tell you that is actual real world sporting results, and the limited results we have so far don’t show any hint of an advantage. If it is in there, it’s small enough that it’s not immediately obvious. We both know that if it was obvious, the media would be screaming it from the hills.

        Some numbers. There are 50,000 athletes in the Olympics each year. From memory, there have been 4 or 5 Olympics in which trans people have been able to participate. So, that’s at least 200,000 athletes participating in that time. Now, trans people make up 1% of the population. Lets say that trans people are 10x less likely to get involved in sports though due to external factors. Using those numbers, 1 in 1000 of those 200,000 athletes should have been trans, which comes out 200. Lets say trans people are 100 times less likely to participate in sports. Even then, we should have seen 20 trans athletes. And those athletes should have got more gold medals than you would expect. Instead, we have had exactly 1 trans woman athlete in that time, and she came last in her event.

        That’s what people are afraid of.

        No amount of articles about testosterone and puberty change the reality that people are trying to exclude a vulnerable minority to solve a problem they can’t even show to exist in the first place.

  • Martin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That they’re right. You should be able to question your own opinions. A lost art, it seems

  • StoneBleach@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That looking too closely at the screen will blind you or damage your eyes. This myth originated decades ago in the 1960s from an advertisement by a television manufacturer. Basically in 1967 General Electric reported that their color TVs were emitting too many x-rays due to a factory error, so health officials recommended keeping children and pretty much anyone else at a safe distance from the screen. The problem was soon resolved, but the myth endured.

    If you ask me I would say that x-ray radiation has little to do with going blind, I have no idea if radiation can actually make you blind, but it’s funny how somehow eye diseases got in the way as the only possible consequences in the myth just because we use our eyes to watch TV.

  • unnecessarily@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Americans: You’re not tired after eating Thanksgiving dinner because of tryptophan in the turkey, you’re tired because you ate a lot of food.