Треугольник вас, учёных, превратит в умалишённых

[i_eron]

Записка американского министерства здравоохранения говорит, что разногласия о том, какой у человека пол, будут решаться генетическим тестом. 1642 учёных, включая, если я правильно посчитал, 9 нобелевских лауреатов, подписали в ответ письмо, что это ненаучно и неэтично.

"Это предложение фундаментально несовместимо не только с наукой, но и с этическими нормами, правами человека и базовым достоинством.", написали учёные. Заметка в газете, из которой я об этом узнал, озаглавлена "1,600 учёных подписали письмо против плана Трампа сузить определение гендера".


Упд. (не про учёных, а про журналистов): [спасибо irrelative] О записке министерства стало известно из статьи НЙ-Таймс, журналисты которой как-то прочитали эту записку. Сама записка не опубликована, но в статье есть закавыченные цитаты из неё. Письмо учёных ссылается не на оригинальную статью НЙ-Таймс, а на вторичную статью за той же датой (рассказ о том, что Ройтерс сообщает, что НЙ-Таймс опубликовала статью, в которой...). Вторичная статья существенно отличается содержанием от оригинальной. В частности, оригинальная статья цитирует про "пол":

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

А вторичная цитирует про "гендер" (хотя это слово за пределами кавычек, так что, возможно, его присобачили сами журналисты):

A draft of the Trump administration memo says gender should be determined "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable," the memo says, according to the Times.

Правда, от себя журналисты в первой фразе каждой из двух статей пишут, что администрация Трампа хочет узко определить именно "гендер", и так эта новость и разошлась по заголовкам. Сам я в этом не разбираюсь, но учёные явно считают, что слова "пол" и "гендер" имеют разный смысл, тогда как журналисты их путают. Поэтому ужасно жалко, что их письмо основано на вторичной статье. Хотя ещё научнее было бы критиковать записку министерства, прочитав саму записку, а не журналистские цитаты. И ещё обидно, что журналисты НЙ-Таймс, кажется, убрали вторичную статью со своего сайта, а ведь именно она послужила причиной письма учёных и является его первой ссылкой. Хороши будут эти 9 нобелевских лауреатов, если сошлются на, допустим, Эйнштейна, а Annalen Phys. вдруг возьмёт да и сотрёт его статью.

Comments

[tandem-bike.livejournal.com]

i am curious "WHY NOW" and what's the point.

i think this is another bone Trump is throwing to his evangelical sector.

determining sex by gentialia is okay, since cases of ambiguous genitalia are rare.
determining sex by caryotype is also okay. however there are rare variants even there.

however "gender" is no longer synonymous with sex.

sex is - who you are "medically". gender is - who you are "psychologically...

so, only an individual can determine his or her "gender". there is no objective scientific gender determination.
in that sense, the scientists are completely correct.

i repeat Spam's question - but why even ask.

from the point of view of discrimination/negation of transsexuality - they are right as well. if gender is equated with sex, transsexuals remain the same sex they were born into, genetic engineering of XX into XY and back is not possible quite yet :-)

"sex change operation" thus is a misnomer. however under the proposed rule a transgender XY cannot call themselves a woman after transition.

that is just.. wrong.

[i_eron]

I understand that the HHS would be more correct saying they will determine "sex", rather than "gender". I hope it is not a journalist's "error", because we know about the memo only from the paper.

Yes, the whole point must be "throwing a bone", and if so this is another in the list of reasons for me not to be able to unequivocally support this administration.

Yes, I don't know much about the "psychological gender", tend to believe the specialists by default. I'd be happy just to understand women better, which I don't even consider as "setting the bar low". So I have no hope of understanding the non-binary gender nuances. My big problem with this letter is not at all related to which side better understands gender.

[tandem-bike.livejournal.com]

but what is the problem? they frame it somewhat hysterically, but i read to say two things -

1. gender assignment has no scientific basis, zilch, and
2. equating bilogical sex and social gender is ging to result in transgender people discrimination...


i agree with both stsattements..

where are they wrong?

[i_eron]

They are in their place explaining the current state of science on gender. They are kind of all right expanding this to point out, that some real people out there would be hurt by a narrow binary definition.

But they also say, in bold, that the government "proposal is fundamentally inconsistent not only with science, but also with ethical practices, human rights, and basic dignity". And they cite the UN as a reference.

This is not "framing it somewhat hysterically". This is an attempt to use science authority (that should be limited to science topics) as a prod with which to guide us to the proper ethical norms and correct human rights. Scientists should not assume the role of guardians of our morals.

Imagine a letter written by 1642 army officers including 9 generals, rebuking the government for its wrong ethics. In this country a military coup is somewhat unlikely, so let's place the letter in say, Turkey or Brasil, where such threat is more real. In the US hijacking ethical policy decisions by an undemocratic elite specialist class is a real threat.

[tandem-bike.livejournal.com]

i see now. thank you for the explanation --- but it is already hijacked.

[i_eron]

Sure, the political decision making is in part given away from democratic ways to various unelected and unaccountable elite specialists. It is a tug-o-war situation, some pull back towards true democracy, others pull further away from it. Here is my tiny contribution to pulling the right way :-)

[tandem-bike.livejournal.com]

:-)))