The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
Maybe a poor decision is made occasionally but I would still trust in experts over the general public to make decisions about what is best for health/education of kids as the vast, vast, vast majority of the time it will result in decisions that are in better for the children's long term interests rather than a result of uninformed reactionism. It's a complete no-brainer for me.
Why do you trust experts on hyper-politicized topics where no actual scientifical consensus exists in general?
Keep in mind that if scientific consensus exists, the answer is the same in Japan, Nigeria and the USA. Like you know, if you have to build a bridge that can withstand earthquakes.
Why do you presume social sciences are actually any good at predicting outcomes, given the scientific process is almost non existent in them?
Why do you think passing some years among leftists in academia talking about the sex of angels would make someone good at deciding about anything?
I can understand people who spent 180k for a worthless degree in education might believe they are actually experts, but why would anyone else is beyond me.
hard disagree, especially when you can easily find experts in any field who are bought and paid for by some special interest group.
Entire disciplines in the social sciences are complete frauds devoid of any actual predictive power, with a bankrupt epistemology .
They don't measure because they don't have basic math in the curriculum (which is why those people choose them as their majors), which means they can't deliver anything useful to anyone.
If you aren't good at statistics (IE you took several advanced statistical classes at the very minimum) you can't be an expert about anything that applies to large numbers of cases.
You can't write or read a paper, you can't take any conclusion out of actual scientific literature (which is all stat-based), you don't even know what "good study design" means.
There may not be a consensus but I will always prefer people who are informed making meaningful decisions over people who are not.
Why do you believe the general public, who for the most part don't even have surface level knowledge of the subjects involved, are good at making the decisions?
You position ultimately boils down to a belief that social science is largely bunk and I disagree. I doubt there's any reasonable way to resolve that sort of impasse.
There may not be a consensus but I will always prefer people who are informed making meaningful decisions over people who are not.
Why do you believe the general public, who for the most part don't even have surface level knowledge of the subjects involved, are good at making the decisions?
You position ultimately boils down to a belief that social science is largely bunk and I disagree. I doubt there's any reasonable way to resolve that sort
I believe the general public to be bad, but the experts in social sciences to be even worse because these days they skew radical left, and that's worse than the general public.
I mean something like 20% of sociology professors are self identified Marxists, something like 90-95 of college professors in social sciences are self identified liberal, very liberal or worse, what are we talking about? It's a religion not science.
If you believe experts then you would accept actual self defined rightwing experts opinions on any social science matter? You sure?
Because some of them still exist and do not agree with their leftist colleagues on many things.
I would listen to them and value their opinion infinitely higher than a random member of the public yes.
I would listen to them and value their opinion infinitely higher than a random member of the public yes.
Then there are plenty of rightwing experts agreeing on the topic with me, we are fine.
Like you know educators in the USA as well till 20 years ago? Nevermind in other countries where those pornographic trans activist materials aren't available in high school
Maybe a poor decision is made occasionally but I would still trust in experts over the general public to make decisions about what is best for health/education of kids as the vast, vast, vast majority of the time it will result in decisions that are in better for the children's long term interests rather than a result of uninformed reactionism. It's a complete no-brainer for me.
There may not be a consensus but I will always prefer people who are informed making meaningful decisions over people who are not.
Why do you believe the general public, who for the most part don't even have surface level knowledge of the subjects involved, are good at making the decisions?
You position ultimately boils down to a belief that social science is largely bunk and I disagree. I doubt there's any reasonable way to resolve that sort
I would listen to them and value their opinion infinitely higher than a random member of the public yes.
This, this, a thousand times this.
We elect politicians to lead, not to make every operational decision. The idea that we should be substituting the most popular decisions in for the judgement of those who have been hired for their expertise is just mind-boggling to me. If you don't trust your experts, then get new ones. The idea that you pay people for their expertise and then ignore them is bizarre.
That's not to say they are trusted blindly and there is no oversight. That's where the buck stops with our politicians. But if they're simply going to make all the operational decisions in certain areas, WTF is the point in hiring any expertise in that area?
This, this, a thousand times this.
We elect politicians to lead, not to make every operational decision. The idea that we should be substituting the most popular decisions in for the judgement of those who have been hired for their expertise is just mind-boggling to me. If you don't trust your experts, then get new ones. The idea that you pay people for their expertise and then ignore them is bizarre.
That's not to say they are trusted blindl
Wait a sec!
The bold is a complete spoil system as I asked and you refused that!
Yes, schools , counties and state with right-wing majorities should FIRE ALL LEFT LEANING EXPERTS and hire right leaning ones in all fields. YES.
But then magically , believe me, you won't support the experts as much anymore.
Wonna bet? because when Ron de Santis nominated experts that disagreed with the CDC and fauci in the state of florida, they weren't experts to be believed as such anymore, they were political appointees whose opinion had no inherent expertise value.
The point is in the current system you can't fire all politically compromised employees drafting recommendations about policy in education, do you get that part?
Yoh have the radical leftists who got their job and are "career experts", those you don't want politicians to be able to fire right?
Can you imagine what would happen in this situation.
Everybody has a boss. The boss gets to decide the parameters of how you do your job. Including telling you how to do it.
Of course. But in this case, you have bosses that have varying degrees of expertise in the field that their employees do, often little to none, so giving them instructions of what to do within that field is pretty silly.
No it isn't. I said nothing about hiring or firing people based on their political leaning - you're the one with this interesting idea that political affiliation should be a super-important criteria. As for your claim that I "refused that", we were talking about a supposedly independent agency.
The point is in the current system you can't fire all politically compromised employees drafting recommendations about policy in education, do you get that part?
Yoh have the radical leftists who got their job and are "career experts", those you don't want politicians to be able to fire right?
You sure make a lot of assumptions about what I do or don't want. I want to have people with expertise in their field, and I don't have this weird obsession you do about their political affiliations. But then, it seems like you're probably kept up at night by the thought of all the "radical leftists" hiding under your bed, so we're coming at this from pretty different places.
Bobo comon you said GET NEW ONES, how are we supposed to pay for the new ones if we have to keep the bad ones on the payroll lol
I said if you don't trust your experts you should get new ones, correct. How are you supposed to operate an education system where you don't trust your educators? Why do you have to keep the bad ones on your payroll?
I'm wondering now if you understand that a small number of those educators would typically be the ones who decide on curriculum.
Of course. But in this case, you have bosses that have varying degrees of expertise in the field that their employees do, often little to none, so giving them instructions of what to do within that field is pretty silly.
Cmon Bobo, this happens all the time in all fields. The bosses get to set the parameters for what they want their product to be.
Cmon Bobo, this happens all the time in all fields. The bosses get to set the parameters for what they want their product to be.
I'm not sure why I'm getting the "Cmon Bobo" treatment when you appear to be equating a public education system to a company as if they're run the same way. There are parallels, but they aren't the same thing. Politicians are elected to oversee an education system, and they are required to have zero expertise or knowledge of the education system when they're elected. A school board certainly has the authority to make whatever changes they like, I'm just telling you that it's a bad idea for them to get involved in the operations. The comparison should probably be to a company's board of directors, who I assume would also stay out of operational matters for the most part.
A good school board hires a CEO, consults the educational stakeholders, sets a strategic plan and a budget that supports it, and gets the **** out of the way. That's a little oversimplified, but it's the general idea.
Even if masks had a guaranteed efficacy of 100% when wore by kids (lol) it would still be criminal to mandate them to the 3y old.
Which is why most European countries never mandated them under 6.
Which is why we know they don't work to protect others, as schools for the 3 to 5 had all kids unmasked, schools 6+ had all kids masked, and infection rates for teachers were the same.
But in general I am against all mandates regardless of efficacy why are you surprised?
I said if you don't trust your experts you should get new ones, correct. How are you supposed to operate an education system where you don't trust your educators? Why do you have to keep the bad ones on your payroll?
I'm wondering now if you understand that a small number of those educators would typically be the ones who decide on curriculum.
Because that's the law? Currently you can't fire any public employee you dislike when you get elected. There are some positions that "serve at the pleasure" but most public jobs are untouchable.
We on the right don't actually trust leftists to be near our kids yes.
We are currently not allowed to fire them so we do what we can to limit the damage they can do to our children.
A good school board hires a CEO, consults the educational stakeholders, sets a strategic plan and a budget that supports it, and gets the **** out of the way. That's a little oversimplified, but it's the general idea.
Imagine inheriting a company that, according to you, is failing badly (like winning an election after the other party governed), and not being able to fire almost anyone.
What's your plan there?
Even if masks had a guaranteed efficacy of 100% when wore by kids (lol) it would still be criminal to mandate them to the 3y old.
Which is why most European countries never mandated them under 6.
Which is why we know they don't work to protect others, as schools for the 3 to 5 had all kids unmasked, schools 6+ had all kids masked, and infection rates for teachers were the same.
But in general I am against all mandates regardless of efficacy wh
I didn't think your first post was particularly relevant, but certainly this further explanation drives your point home.
Are you really upset by these cartoon images and their display of kinky behavior?
Because that's the law? Currently you can't fire any public employee you dislike when you get elected.
I thought we were talking about employees that you don't trust.
There are some positions that "serve at the pleasure" but most public jobs are untouchable.
Um, no. Unionized teachers would be far more difficult to dismiss, but those in charge of curriculum decisions tend to be more managerial-type positions. That said, firing people with cause is difficult, so outright firing would be expensive, and it could get more expensive if your CEO (superintendent around here) doesn't want to go along with your plan of completely upending their team because of your fear that their staff is "grooming" children. And then there's the challenge of finding qualified educators who would align with your beliefs that the scary books need to be banned.
So you basically have three choices. You could just leave things alone and trust your qualified educators. You could spend a lot of money on severance and replace a good chunk of your management team with educators who see things the same way you do. Or you could have a school board overrule your management team, and I guess hope that a lot of them leave for another school district, which I'm sure a number of them would. Oh, and options 2 and 3 would have a good chance seeing the board in court over humans rights violations, depending on what books you're choosing to ban.
That said, I think you'd have an easier time in the US, where I believe "at will" employment is far more common, and I expect human rights lawsuits would be less likely as well. Their school district/board structure may differ from ours in ways that make this process different as well.
Regardless, it all seems like a pretty bad idea to me. Better to get past your hang-ups, rather than drag everyone else down to wherever you're at.
Yes, schools , counties and state with right-wing majorities should FIRE ALL LEFT LEANING EXPERTS and hire right leaning ones in all fields. YES.
This makes me wonder if there's not a lot of projection going on here. Just because you have strong political biases that you can't operate separately from doesn't mean that everyone does. "don't actually trust leftists to be near our kids" - yikes! There's some serious paranoia.
This makes me wonder if there's not a lot of projection going on here. Just because you have strong political biases that you can't operate separately from doesn't mean that everyone does. "don't actually trust leftists to be near our kids" - yikes! There's some serious paranoia.
Of course its projection
Republicans are overrepresented in sexual scandal something like 3:1 over the last 30 years : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fe...
If there is one thing they love its publicly denouncing the gays while claiming its all to protect children while they secretly blow dudes in bathrooms and diddle kids.
