Hacker News Reader

Comment by derp_dee_derp | Hacker News Reader

sometimes I read an article, like this one, that has a sound basis in science, look at the headline, look at where its published, think about the target audience that will read the article, and can't help but question the "why" that article was published.

Is there any reason at all to publish an article about the gender of research mice in the Guardian except to push some kind of political gender agenda?

I ask specifically because of the article's last 4 paragraphs. They are so laden with gender agenda it kind of blows my mind.

View on HN

It seems pretty rational and interesting to me that a persistent bias in the gender or research bias continues and amplifies a persistent bias in whom drugs are best serving.

Do you have an “anti-gender” agenda where you wish that gender is not discussed?

> It seems pretty rational and interesting to me that a persistent bias in the gender or research bias continues and amplifies a persistent bias in whom drugs are best serving.

Rat studies aside, the reason there is more drug testing data on men is in large part because of the government testing drugs on gays, pacifists, soldiers, prisoners, etc. without their knowledge of consent.

I'm sure those things are interesting; however, you don't learn about them by cherrypicking sources and studies to suit a particular agenda. In particular, by challenging TFA's overt agenda pushing, the parent isn't advocating a different agenda (except perhaps for more objective science journalism).

Well the thing is what separates an agenda from being political or not is how normalized it is - not how right or wrong it is factually or morally. Pointing out AIDS is from a virus was once "political" because it undermined their "decadent lifestyles are to blame" beliefs.

The non-cynical why is to highlight how stupid issues of humans are harming research quality in a way that could put human health at risk. The cynical why is because it gets them clicks and both options aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm at odds with your assertion, to me they sound like the kind of "in-fighting" I have come to expect when discussing /anything/ regarding sex. If you treat one as an "other" then you're a pariah, but equally if you do not then whatever gender is chosen becomes the defacto standard anyway.

The take-away for me is that science shouldn't be interesting in listening to those who enjoy politicking.

The last four paragraphs, taken out of context for the benefit of people who won't read the article first and wonder what the parent is talking about:

> She is also concerned about the approach taken by some research teams in the US which incorporate both sexes in experiments by working things out in males first and then repeating it in females. “It perpetuates the dated, sexist and scientifically inaccurate idea that male brains are a standard from which female brains deviate,” she said.

> Ironically, Shansky said, the ways in which the male and female brains differ may have remained under-investigated due to a backlash against the idea of there being meaningful differences between the male and female brain.

> “There’s a concern that research that shows sex differences in the brain will be weaponised by misogynists or used to justify and promote inequality,” she said. “It’s up to scientists to make sure that the message of those studies is not conveyed in a comparative way that adds any value. It doesn’t have to be a competition, it’s not about being better, it’s just about saying this is how things works.

> “There’s nothing anti-feminist about saying the neurobiology in the female brain might be different.”

Does the site have an agenda about the topic?

Or is their agenda about clicks?

I feel like the second is more likely. Most science news is ultra click bait stuff. I suspect this is no different.

More places need science editors who are a bit more thoughtful. IMO it's possible to pull in the clicks... but provide context and educate as well.

They are left leaning according to mediabiasfactcheck and gender discrimination is a heavily politicized topic. Their agenda is also about clicks; gender discrimination claims will generate more clicks than a science article

I don't really trust any given site to determine "left" or "right" what is even left or right in any given state, country, or whatever is not nearly as consistent as a lot of rating sites seem to think.

They might be right, I'm just not inclined to belive any of those sites.

How about https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/0... Which presents the left/right perspective in a much better way, as you can see by the graph - it's not just a binary pigeon-hole.

Then their is wiki - a crowd-sourced perspective: "the paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion, and its reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing editorial has led to the use of the "Guardian reader" and "Guardianista" as often-pejorative epithets for those of left-leaning or "politically correct" tendencies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

But this whole right/left labeling has got silly and used as a means to label and dismiss the subject/debate at hand. It's a whole sliding scale and as always it is the extreme edges of both the left and the right that are the real issue. But alas many will label something left or right and project that edge-case upon all on the divide, however close to the center they may be.

I think poorly disguised advocacy journalism has become the defacto journalism in the U.S., especially at outlets like the guardian. And for whatever reason, [advocacy] journalists lean heavily left.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com