Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: General Discussions (Read 337566 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 19 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1920 –
The following might explain the Governments proposed position and inclusion of candidates for health related studies.
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research-policy/gender-equity/statement-sex-and-gender-health-and-medical-research

Its a draft statement but I dont know of any outcome from it...

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1921 –
I always worry when someone introduces facts into a debate.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1923 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
The following might explain the Governments proposed position and inclusion of candidates for health related studies.
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research-policy/gender-equity/statement-sex-and-gender-health-and-medical-research

Its a draft statement but I dont know of any outcome from it...
Yep, there they are, painters of the future, stewards of our tax dollars, compiling an ever increasing list of categories to divide and define us by.

Making the globe a meaner place under the banners of doing good and inclusion.

Perhaps in that expert panel hides the rort PaulP searches for, if PaulP is serious about finding it. Can we give them a label too?

We are all humans aren't we, painting over the cracks comes with a real world cost, but at least there will be a gold star of inclusion for everybody!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1924 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
I think this response just proved Blue Moons point.

If you are REALLY worried about tax payers $'s, then there are plenty of bigger fish to fry than going after a minority of a minority included here.
As ludicrous as it may be, its a drop in the ocean of where real $'s are being spent.
Nobody is denying anybody access to care, services or support, but voluntarily participation in this study by otherwise invalid candidates wastes funds and consumes places for those who are valid participants.

There are so many categories being created that a path can no longer be navigated through the tangle without extreme waste or conflict, it's making the world a meaner place, and strangling progress.

Blue Moon makes an assertion the cost is trivial, but collectively this policy would be applied to all studies, as this wedge gets driven into general practise the wasted funds will be staggeringly large in a country where researchers are paupers. That's ultimately why you pay more for doctors, medicines and insurance, death by a thousand cuts.

Divided and conquered with a dynamo!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1925 –
It’s 100% pure scaremongering, selectively targeting a minority group that is already struggling, and without a shred of evidence.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1926 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
It’s 100% pure scaremongering, selectively targeting a minority group that is already struggling, and without a shred of evidence.
No

That's the answer to the accusation of scaremongering, and also the solution to the cause of the waste.

Just a simple, no! (A highly offensive term apparently!)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1927 –
Still waiting for all that evidence you have piled up, of men dressed as women, faux vaginas and all the rest, with their snouts in the trough, diverting funds from the “worthy” candidates.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1928 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Still waiting for all that evidence you have piled up, of men dressed as women, faux vaginas and all the rest, with their snouts in the trough, diverting funds from the “worthy” candidates.
Aren't I supposed to be the one being alarmist and extreme?

Conflating rorts with waste was the accusation you have made, but it's based on a fallacy, so obviously I can't provide evidence of a fallacy because it's a fallacy, not part of the debate. Waste is not always rort, never was never will be, rorts can be waste.

There are no declarative statements about the worth of individuals or groups, the accusation is emotive, are you posting that deliberately or just become confused, the assertion is not based in fact?

Just as it's invalid to include all people who "identity as female" in prostate studies, it's completely invalid to include all people who "identify as male" in studies of endometriosis or menopause. Nothing you can write or speak will change that fact, and as you mention repeatedly they will are not part of the baseline because they are minority.

We vote, we spend, we create, we matter, disregard us at your peril and it will come at a huge cost. But there aren't many of us, the little we get you can ignore, it's a drop in the ocean, you won't even notice.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1929 –
So in other words, what we have here is the standard Pat shtick. High octane sensationalist drama, innuendo, scuttlebutt, nudge nudge, but little to actually back it up. Watch out for Sheedy, watch out for AFL HQ, watch out for umpire 22, watch out for BT, watch out for green energy promoters, watch out for that stuff that turns boys into girls, and on it goes.

If you're going to make unsubstantiated claims against a minority group, expect push back. And my calls for you to bring receipts in respect of these harmful claims are completely justified.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1930 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
If you're going to make unsubstantiated claims against a minority group, expect push back. And my calls for you to bring receipts in respect of these harmful claims are completely justified.
There are no unsubstantiated claims made against a minority groups, you're gilding the lily for emotive purposes.

The waste is a systematic issue, it's absurd to include otherwise biological males in studies about endometriosis or menopause, voluntarily or not, just as it would be as silly as including able bodied individuals in a study of amputees.

Do you genuinely think involvement in medical research is done for free?

Again there is no rort, the invalid candidates who might volunteer to be involved receive nothing except perhaps private validation of identity, but the involvement comes at a real world cost.

Typically in Australia the costs starts at about $2500 per candidate and goes up from there. But we don't have to even worry about that individual average, because we can do simple calculations based on proportional representation, 1:100, let's be safe make it 1:1000, if it's applicable to only 1/2 the population then 1:2000. Most recent figures indicate Australia Medical Research spends about $7B/annum, if applied globally at the ratio 1:2000 that's $3.5M dollars for what amounts to virtue signalling. By local R&D averages, that is roughly 15 fully federally funded research projects every year. That's your trivial cost.

If you want to argue the 1:2000 is too many, not representative or an inflated value, if it's 1:10000 or 1:20000, then why the change in the first place?

No, plain and simple.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1931 –
You object to what you perceive is a loophole in the definition, assume a phalanx of unworthy candidates are going to sign on as a result of this "loophole", make no attempt to confirm whether there are any checks and balances in place to reduce the incidence of such applications, and wildly assert that all these hard earned research dollars are being flushed down the toilet, all without the slightest bit of evidence.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1932 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
You object to what you perceive is a loophole in the definition, assume a phalanx of unworthy candidates are going to sign on as a result of this "loophole", make no attempt to confirm whether there are any checks and balances in place to reduce the incidence of such applications, and wildly assert that all these hard earned research dollars are being flushed down the toilet, all without the slightest bit of evidence.
No

No loophole, never claimed it was a loophole, it's in the charter and that will become criteria for funding approval.

No phalanx, never wrote that, but it will be proportional representation, any study has to be proportional representation to be considered viable.

No checks and balances, they can't discriminate that's already long settled in law a long time ago.

No lack of evidence, the intent is in the very links some have already provided earlier in this debate, the existence of those documents is all the confirmation you need, they don't differentiate candidacy.

Just no, no need to become extreme, not sure what you are defending.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1933 –
Lol. So all this fulminating and raging against wokeness on the off chance that a handful of people may inappropriately complete a survey. Is this like Claud Cockburn's spoof headline from decades ago ? "Small earthquake in Chile !! Not many dead !!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1934 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Lol. So all this fulminating and raging against wokeness on the off chance that a handful of people may inappropriately complete a survey. Is this like Claud Cockburn's spoof headline from decades ago ? "Small earthquake in Chile !! Not many dead !!"
No

No rage, just a comment about reality.

I genuinely think you might be overplaying your hand, the level of offense comes across as artificial or disingenuous, a gross over-reaction, even crying wolf or dog whistling. Ironic isn't it, that is what some of the comments might get labelled

If there is a wedge being driven here, it's seems to be pointing in the wrong direction..
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"