258
Lauren Boebert rages over USA Boxing’s trans policy even though she clearly doesn’t understand it
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
258 points (90.6% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2158 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Imagine using predictive text as a source.
First of all, precisely because it is LLM, it is good to point out that it is a source.
Second, the LLM and chat GPT4 in particular can often summarize information quite well. Yes, there are cases when it hallucinate, but at this point it is very rare for GPT4. So, when I do not have hours and hours to spend on some topic like this, asking ChatGPT4 is a valid strategy to get reasonable probability correct answer, with much higher probability than random claims here in fediverse.
So, I will defend the method as reasonable, and will ask you, do you claim that what is stated is false?
You are posting a position you don't even necessarily understand. You are providing what might be facts or maybe not. Might be subject to bias in training data. What do you think this adds to the discussion? You want someone to disagree with stuff you don't even know?
I don't have time for that bullshit so I asked ChatGPT to write a rebuttal. I'm not even going to post the whole thing, just the following excerpt:
"It’s crucial to understand that transgender women are individuals whose gender identity is female, regardless of their assigned sex at birth."
This right here is why posting AI answers is garbage. It's not just flat out wrong, but insists that this nonsensical garbage is crucial to your understanding.
And for what it's worth I'm a big fan of AI. I use it all the time. I've written applications that leverage it. I've had it help me with coding issues. But I never, ever trust it.
I am not saying ChatGPT4 is fool proof, but neither is any source. And if I actually will try to understand the original sociological research paper, it may increase my chances of misunderstanding the data.
Let me put this this way - start asking ChatGPT4 (not 3.5) biological and medical questions and keep tally of correct answers. You would see how accurate it is. I would say with 95% probability it would answer such questions correctly. And this is how much credence I put in its answer.
So, when you say that I was providing the fact that may be right maybe not, yes, that’s correct. But it is not 50/50, far from it.
And if you do not want to provide rebuttal, it is your right, of course. But then, what’s the point of your post? We just need to believe your statement when you itself refuse to provide zero evidence?? You understand how it looks, right?
Fool proof*...
Thanks, corrected.
You aren't correcting anything. You are using chatgpt as a source and using adjectives you don't even understand. You failed the test.
Its actually foolproof... Well in your case, maybe not so much.
In the short term, yes. What this leaves out is that two years of HRT is enough to negate those physical benefits. Hormones are powerful shit.
Also, no it fucking isn't a reasonable method. It has neither the credentials to know what it's talking about, nor any obligation to verify that what it says is true. Imagine reading 10,000 shitty sci-fi novels and 1 textbook and thinking you can piece together advanced physics. It literally cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction, nor does it care. It's a machine. Garbage in, garbage out.
I suggest you to ask ChatGPT4 questions in medicine and biology, and keep tally. If you truly think ChatGPT4 is garbage, you will be surprised. I spent lots of hours interacting with it, and I understand its limitations and strengths. And these kind of questions it usually answers quite well.
Considering you think it's a substitute for a scholarly source, I doubt that. Once again, this is a machine designed to repeat things it heard. It's a mechanical parrot. ChatGPT4 did not earn a degree. It did not study. It does not fact check. It does not give a solitary fuck about the scientific method. If you cannot see why this would be a problem for its credibility, then I can't help you.
You just tried to use a glorified markov chain in an argument. Suffice to say I do not believe that you are the best judge of factual accuracy in regards to said tally.
I suggest you yourself test it, do not rely on me. It is experimentally can be shown as quite good predictor for these kind of questions. Don’t want to test yourself and don’t believe me? There a lot of tests were done of these models showing that they are already at the level to pass many exams. Your claim that it does not have any credibility is totally unfounded.
Also, I never claimed that it is a substitute for scholarly source, I would never use it in a scientific paper. But I would not use Wikipedia either. But we are on internet on discussion board, the standards here are different. At least I supplied a source, majority of posts here don’t do that, including your statements, by the way, implying that ChatGPT4 has no credibility.
Even if we assumed ChatGPT were completely accurate, that answer includes enough weasel words so it is not sufficient here.
varies significantly among individuals … might retain …. may not completely reverse
All this tells us is that making this fair is not an easy answer, anything more is individual interpretation. It probably needs some sort of medical consensus.
How did they choose four years? Did they pull that out of their asses, or was there medical input? Is there a reason to expect ChatGPT to be a better source than what they used?
Four years was number given in the question, because this number was selected by boxing rules.
As for the rest, are you suggesting that a post for discussion on internet should have the same level of credence as scientific article or article in encyclopedia? Why suddenly such super-high standards to my poste? Coincidently, no-one, despite criticism of my use of ChatGPT, pointed on even single mistake in that text.
It doesn’t need a mistake.
You’re complaining that four years of hormone therapy is insufficient without knowing where that came from or why, but we’re saying we’re not listening to Aunt Marge as more of an authority.
I have no idea whether their decision is sound or what facts they base it on, but I’m also not taking Au t Marge’s word for it that they’re wrong
You're not a specialist, so you asked a computer algorithm to spit words at you. Fucking galaxy brain move.
Oh, FFS. Here we go. "I did my research" == "I plunked letters into a box until the computer used words I don't know. Science, bitch!"
We're so fucked.
If your claim that what is posted is incorrect, then state so, and provide reasons. Otherwise, I do not understand why using tools such as ChatGPT4 you consider as something bad? Do you use search engines? They are tools too. Do you use wiki? That is a tool too. Or do you spit sarcasm on anyone who does not produce original research?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
You do not consider ChatGPT4 as any sort of evidence? Go ahead and ask it questions in medicine or biology and keep tally how many answers are right and are wrong.
I do admit that there is low probability that it is wrong, but simply dismissing it as no evidence at all is intentional dishonesty.
ChatGPT4 is a fucking toy that regurgitates random shit it finds on the Internet. The only evidence it provides is the lack of understanding its user has.
By your own admission it can get things wrong, yet you're arguing it should be trusted at face value.
The whole point of citing a source is so that you can confirm the veracity of the how the source came to its conclusion.You have no idea why the LLM gave you the answer it did. You don't know how credible its input data was. Hopefully those involved in these discussions on both sides are searching for truth. The critical examination of the data and the origin of that data is the bedrock of that. Simply pasting raw LLM output doesn't allow any of that to occur.
LLM/AI ML can have a place in these discussions as a tool you use for yourself, and then you can search for supporting sources to back up the LLM's claim. However, that's work you have to do. Its not my job when you're the one trying to convince me of your LLM's conclusion.
Dishonesty is passing off raw LLM output as researched fact. Its also lazy.
I am arguing that it should be given relatively high credence, not “trusted at face value”. Same as with Wikipedia, by the way. As an indication that likely things are true. On Internet forums it is much higher credence than most of the people supply. I am not writing scientific paper here, I am discussing topic with you. Would you rather me stating acts without any sources at all?
For this discussion if you have different opinion, with better argumentation and sources please do so, and I will change my view. This is what discussion on discussion board suppose to be.
And you can absolutely confirm the veracity (or not) of ChatGPT4 itself. You can ask the question yourself. You can collect statistics how likely it gives correct answers to similar questions, or find already published data about this topic. Based on that you can calculate probability that the statement is true. And it is much higher than 50%.
In short, don’t attack the messenger, attack the message.
I suggest asking it about highly specialized technical topics or very specific details. AI either tends to get it wrong, or it'll tell you it isn't qualified to give an answer.
I actually do do that. And quite often it does right. It very rare get's it wrong. More often when it is "wrong" it will give you generic useless answer, not what you are asking, if it does not have information. But just opposite to truth? Not often. You can ask questions of a type "Describe main difference of Cynicism and Stoicism philosophy" or "Explain similarities and differences of EDFA and YDFA" And it give very reasonable answers.
This particular topic, however, is not highly specialized, or at least not specialized more than the questions I supplied above as examples. So I expect similar validity of the answer.
I know you are, and I disagree. Your example of Wikipedia is a great differentiator.
The reason that Wikipedia is generally a good source is that it too cites its sources. If a Wikipedia entry makes a claim, I can see where that data came from or if its not cited, I know the claim is suspect and not to trust it. ChatGPT has none of that.
From my perspective not citing any source is exactly what you're doing. ChatGPT isn't a trusted or challenge-able source
If you want ChatGPT involved, that's your job. Why is it you can't use ChatGPT to find the real source which backs its claim?
"much higher that 50% is way way too low a bar to be considered a factual source.
I can't attack the message, its not backed by any sources to question it. My only option is to trust it absolutely, which is absurd.
Let me ask you a question differently. Do you think that the fact that ChatGPT stated what it stated has ANY impact on the credence of those statements?
Like what is more likely to be true, if I, none-specialist come up to those statements myself without doing any research OR come up to those statements BECAUSE ChatGPT stated that?
Absolutely. ChatGPT isn't a scholar, a researcher, or an academic. Its a set of mathematical algorithms that consumes scholarly, research, or academic work (as well as the totality of non-factual internet drivel bases on hearsay, prejudiced, and conjecture) and produces answers it believes are relevant based on correlations of the text, not the context.
This is why its fine for you to ask the question of it to see where it goes to guide your own research, but ChatGPT by itself, is not a trusted source.
That's a false dichotomy.
I don't trust either one of you to provide a factual answer without source backing if we're determining objective facts. Subjective Opinion? Sure! You're welcome to state your subjective opinion without backing, but I would hope that you yourself would try to have fact based objective opinions, and when those opinions are challenged you can explain how you arrived at them if they are objective.
Why do you think that algorithm that consumes and process information do not increase credence of statements in any way? They would be completely useless if it were the case, people would not use them. It is precisely because they give you something, they are helpful. Don’t you agree?
If subjective opinion of non-specialist is as credible as the output of ChatGPT, there would be no point in such tool.
As for false dichotomy, how it can be “false” when I ask you to compare two things? Fine, you do not trust both of those, but you can not even make judgement which one you trust less (or mistrust more)?
Because it processes based upon pattern math, not reason. You seem to be confusing the two.
I don't agree. People use them as an input to their otherwise human controlled research or process. Even if you're asking ChatGPT to write you a letter for business, you don't simply copy/paste the raw output without proofreading for context or tone. If you were using ChatGPT in this way, as I've said a number of times, you'd be fine. Instead, you're taking raw ChatGPT output with zero external confirmation and claiming its fact.
You're setting these as binary conditions when they aren't, but neither opinion of non-specialist or ChatGPT rise to the bar of "trusted fact".
Its false because you're setting the conditions that these are the only two choices. They aren't. I have the choice of actual research for fact finding.
I'm seeing something in the pattern of this writing. Can I ask if you're using ChatGPT output to aid in your argument?
Any process in human brain can be described as pattern, math. GPT has ANN as part of it, and I do not think you can say that it does not reason. It reasons differently, but it still does. It can solve problems, for example, that it was never trained upon (only on similar problems). You can literally ask it like "if John worked some number of days days and was earning 3$ per day on weekday, and on weekday it was earning $5 per day, then how many days he worked in total if he earned 11$ per week and he worked twice less days during weekend than during the week". It will solve it. I just made up the problem, it had never seen the problem, but it correctly solves it. You are not calling that "reason"? I think half of the people in this community will have problem solving this. And GPT can solve much more difficult puzzles.
You do not make sense. If there is NOTHING that ChatGPT gives to you, of no validity whatsoever, then you would not use it. If there is at least some validity of the statements, only then it is useful.
You do not make sense here either. I am asking you to compare two things, it is irrelevant that there are more things. I can ask you to compare the weight of an apple and of an orange. It does not matter that there is also potato. You still can compare it. It is not false dichotomy.
Again, you're saying its binary; all or nothing. I've said many times now that's not the measure. The measure is if is a trusted source for answers. It isn't. It can be part of a path to get a trusted answer, but raw ChatGPT isn't.
A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.
If you need the definition of that its this:
"Logical fallacies are deceptive or false arguments that may seem stronger than they actually are due to psychological persuasion, but are proven wrong with reasoning and further examination. These mistakes in reasoning typically consist of an argument and a premise that does not support the conclusion." source
You're trying to move the goalposts with the argument. We started this exploring the question of "Is ChatGPT a trusted source?" Now you're trying to redefine the question of "Is ChatGPT better than nothing?". I'm not engaging in that question, and you've stopped engaging in the original question.
I don't see any productive conversation going forward. I thank you for your time and attention during this discussion. I don't believe either one of us was persuaded to the other's position, but I appreciate your involvement. Have a great day!
I think I see where our misunderstanding is. I have never stated that it is a "trusted source". Only as a source that has positive (and in my opinion reasonably high) credence , that is that it increases validity of the statement. But it does not make it true! This is precisely why I
Stated that I am not specialist (so that you know MY credence is low)
Provided source of the statement (so that you know that the credence of those statements is better than mine, but not to the level of actual scientific papers, or even Wikipedia)
That means that you (the reader of my post) should NOT take my statement as true, only as possibly or likely to be true, and you should not assume that I think I am absolutely right. However, I do believe that there is quite noticeable credence of ChatGPT output and I was posting this in discussion board for the purpose of discussion of those statements with total expectation if the statements are wrong, than people will point that out. So far, despite of multiple attacks on my post, nobody have mention any factual error in the ChatGPT output.
When it comes to science? No. ChatGPT does not write peer-reviewed journal articles.
This pre-supposes that the trans person in question has actually gone through a male puberty which is one things trans advocates are trying to make medically optional and anti trans protesters are trying to take off the table. A lot of trans girls don't want to be forced to go through the puberty that will cause them to be looked down on BECAUSE it will be used as a basis for villification and exclusion from multiple facets of society for the rest of their lives...
But the majority at large would rather have these two conversations separately because transphobes don't want to have young trans women going through a female puberty with the consent and blessings of their parents and a panel of specialists. Heaven forbid! No, they want to make sure that they have justification to make trans girls these monstrously powerful beings who are always supposed to be some kind of threat because they should be forced, like men, to be transformed into animalistic beasts with raw unbridled physical prowess and unfettered lusts that we cannot allow into the careful guarded cloisters alongside the delicate tissue paper likes of womankind.
There is never allowed to be a win condition because there's never even a tiny concession on any front in favor of trans people. If trans advocacy got what they wanted in the realm of trans healthcare for young trans people we could be having a very different discussion about both endocrinology and trans women in sport. Instead we must always assume in these examples that there's zero healthcare options that delays puberty and averts the puberty of one's birth sex and THEN face regular preaching about how policing the fairness of essentially silly games is cause to label us all completely unreasonable while painting trans women as cheats and monsters. It is an embittering Catch 22.
I have no opinion whether trans women should be allowed or not to go through transition before. I would trust medical doctors about this (and not trans community and neither transphobic “community”, which are non-specialists).
But the fact is that the boxing organization does not even allow for trans people to participate in sport in category other than birth sex before age 18, so it assumes that the rules are applicable for those who transition after puberty, and I do see valid concern here from fairness to sic-women point of view. I personally do not have strong opinion here on how to balance fairness for cis-women with freeness to trans-women, but obviously it is not a clear cut question and any solution here would be a compromise with positive and negative sides.
But what amazes me is how quickly some people here get to calling me transphobe just for pointing this. Such extreme binary thinking does not serve community at all.
Again you are taking these arguements as two separate categories. Let's take a theoretical and start figuring out instead what you think is unacceptable where the line is of what is acceptable. Should a professional sport accept anyone unambiguously if they, with full medical assistance, took a regime of puberty blockers until the age of 16 and uninterrupted courses of HRT as soon as they are eligible (this requires the consent of a guardian) and thus never went through a male puberty?
I would inclined to think yes, since there is no advantage in this case for trans-women athletes.
The issue at present is trans women are barred, regardless of whether they have gone through male puberty or not from sports that statistically favor female phenotype over male or are so culturally different as to be a unique sport. Even social category gender delineation leagues designed to cater to removing misogyny from sport such as fishing or chess. The issue deepens with many categories requiring cis women to be tested for and artificially reduce the naturally occurring testosterone in their system through medications and endure invasive scrutiny medically to ensure they have no intersex characteristics.
A lot of the issue becomes that when we talk about trans women in sport there is zero tolerance atmosphere that bleeds over any kind of boundary. There is so very rarely a discussion that actually weighs the harms done to cis women and intersex people by the level of hostility sport has towards specifically trans women. In many instances it becomes the socially acceptable kernel of transphobia that people use to not-so-covertly express their veiw of trans women being a threat to womens spaces.
When you turn to the aspects of how restrictions that are proposed in sport that does favor male phenotypic physique you find an interesting double bind. Sport that forces athletes under 18 to compete in the category of their birth sex means that if you have a trans girl who is on blockers and then transitioning at 16 you basically remove them from being competitive in the early days of their sport and thus they can be sifted out of sport entirely by not meeting a lot of the criteria of recruiters or trainers for being good candidates for training and attention. You essentially create an issue where a person who goes through female puberty is placed in a situation where their only means of competing is against an entire roster of those who have gone through male puberty.
Or if speaking on trans men in this exact situation you get an opposite problem. If you are seen as having an unfair advantage and none of your accomplishments are likely to be taken seriously.
Being segregated by birth sex also creates a hostile situation for trans people's mental health generally as one is placed in a situation that constantly reinforces that society veiws you as indelibly your birth sex and with transness there exists a level of alienation you feel towards other members of your birth sex that means that you do not form bonds with them as being "alike". Mentally at least it creates a similar situation that feels similar to when you are the only member of your sex in a room filled with the opposite sex. This is commonly a major obstacle to cis women in male dominated hobbies and vice versa. This alienation means within the sport you have to have an incredible fortitude for going it alone even if you do not encounter trans misogyny and bullying.
While a stipulation of 'under 18 sex segregation' sounds fair to cis people to trans people who understand what being trans actually is like it represents essentially a trick that preys on the lack of understanding and effective empathy cis people have about the barriers that exist for trans people. It creates circumstances that create insurmountable mental and physical obstacles designed to create odds where it is likely the sport will never have a trans candidate overcome the barriers to be a state to qualify while still theoretically being "inclusive". Since an "open" category of the sport generally doesn't exist this essentially means that there is an entire aspect of society that no form of reasonable accommodation is made to allow participation. Literally people with physical disabilities have more competition league sports altered to accommodate their needs then there exists any sport options open to trans and intersex athletes which, provided you care, represents a civil rights issue towards fair accommodation to participate in society.
This is very good write up and shows complexity of the issue. I actually learned couple of things here, thank you. It is unfortunate that quite often pro-trans right community does not recognize the complexity and have an attitude that trans-women are women and always should be allowed into women sports, without recognizing that it is not that simple and often discussions of those details are just shut down.
It is understandable. A lot of people want to show their support but may not have the best understanding of exactly what trans folk are up against. Similarly a lot of the anti-trans rhetoric tends to paint things very broadly and tends to make the conversation entirely about physical attributes and not about the actual role sports play more widely in the web of personal human connection.
Within the trans community sports are one of those things that people can get kind of wistful about because you are either someone who doesn't give a damn about sports but the topic is frequently used as a "gotcha" to frame you personally as a societal problem of classification that will never be solved... Or sports is something that once brought you joy and you labor in vain to overcome the barriers. It becomes one more thing you had to give up participation in, often even in amateur spaces where it's done just for fun and exercise. When other barriers to being openly trans include issues with retaining connection with family/friends and freedom of travel issues of being severed from previously valuable social connections become compounded.
Children are often encouraged to pursue and enjoy some sort of physical activity from a young age, often before there's any reason to segregate the sexes. A lot of parents are keen to go over the top in their support because they know there is a fair amount of potential leg up from disadvantaged classes to be had in the realm of sport scholarship to post secondary. Even a lot of purely acedemic University portfolios are benefited by participating in some sort of extracurricular sport so it cannot be said that giving it all up doesn't present some actual hardship to young trans people more generally.
Trans voices are very often lost in these discussions which sucks because it's nessisary to know more than just the basics to give proper context. In our absence there's a lot of stuff that is designed to seem perfectly reasonable but is actually designed to be purposefully exclusionary because we as a group are not well understood by the general public. Often even our nearest and dearest struggle to empathize. It's easier to just list all the problems we present rather than actually talk about potential solutions.
What is your take about sports that traditionally favor women or have very specific differences in form?
An example of the former for instance being long distance swiming which is traditionally female dominated.
The former would be something like Women's gymnastics which is so different from Mens Gymnastics they are essentially entirely different sports where even elite mens gymnasts cannot easily perform the sport because it requires an entirely separate training program.
If being trans-women does not provide advantages, I have no objections whatsoever for trans-women participation, and would actually argue that this is the right thing to do. For the same reason I see no problem of trans-men participating in men's sports.
Have you read that? The last time I saw that many hedges I was through the looking glass.