Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
No bio...
User ID: 265
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation system by David Rozado
I have recently tested the ability of OpenAI content moderation system to detect hateful comments about a variety of demographic groups. The findings of the experiments suggest that OpenAI automated content moderation system treats several demographic groups markedly unequally. That is, the system classifies a variety of negative comments about some demographic groups as not hateful while flagging the exact same comments about other demographic groups as being indeed hateful.
-
The OpenAI content moderation system works by assigning to a text instance scores for each problematic category (hate, threatening, self-harm, etc). If a category score exceeds a certain threshold, the piece of text that elicited that classification is flagged as containing the problematic category. The sensitivity and specificity of the system (the trade-off between false positives and false negatives) can be adjusted by moving that threshold.
On gender:
The differential treatment of demographic groups based on gender by OpenAI Content Moderation system was one of the starkest results of the experiments. Negative comments about women are much more likely to be labeled as hateful than the same comments being made about men.
On politics:
Another of the strongest effects in the experiments had to do with ideological orientation and political affiliation. OpenAI content moderation system is more permissive of hateful comments being made about conservatives than the same comments being made about liberals.
-
Finally, I plot all the demographic groups I tested into a single horizontal bar plot for ease of visualization. The groups about which OpenAI content moderation system is more likely to flag negative comments as hateful are: people with disability, same-sex sexual orientation, ethnic minorities, non-Christian religious orientation and women. The same comments are more likely to be allowed by OpenAI content moderation system when they refer to high, middle and low socio-economic status individuals, men, Christian religious orientation (including minority ones), Western nationals, people with low and high educational attainment as well as politically left and right leaning individuals (but particularly right-leaning).
The statistics appear to be rigorous. The author has a very long Conclusion section that is nuanced and worth reading in its entirety.
Eli Lake at Bari Weiss' The Free Press
He lays out in simple, clear language how the FBI has held double and triple standards when it comes to investigating or protecting powerful political figures. I believe this piece is downstream of more original reporting from the likes of Taibbi, Shellenberger, etc, ultimately stemming from Elon Musk's release of The Twitter Files.
You’ll recall that those scoops weren’t as big a news story as was the fact that Facebook and Twitter banned users from sharing the story on the theory that it was the fruit of Kremlin fakery intended to sway the presidential election. It turns out that the FBI officials who warned social media companies that the laptop story might be part of a Russian scheme to mislead voters themselves knew that the laptop was real. And they knew so as early as December of 2019.
But instead of clarifying that the FBI had verified its contents, the bureau instead allowed a falsehood about its provenance to linger. Savor the irony. In an effort to counter Russian disinformation, the FBI actively allowed American disinformation to spread.
It’s also Russiagate—Trump’s alleged (and never proven) collusion with Russia—which was fueled by a Democrat-funded opposition research sheet known as the Steele Dossier. The FBI knew by early 2017 (at the latest) that the whole thing was junk. But like the Russian disinformation lie about the laptop, the bureau let the dossier falsehood linger while the Steele Dossier was hyped like Watergate by the legacy press and Democratic Party in 2017 and 2018.
Then there is the double standard the bureau applied to pursuing foreign influence investigations into Trump’s campaign and the campaign of Hillary Clinton. That was one of the primary conclusions of a report released in May from U.S. Special Counsel John Durham. For Trump, the FBI opened a full investigation on the thinnest of pretexts. For Clinton, the bureau delayed investigations into potential foreign influence and offered defensive briefings to her lawyers.
Here it is useful to examine the other major event of last week: the serious allegations raised by two career IRS investigators who led the team probing Hunter’s tax violations. On Wednesday the two agents, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, testified in open session before the House Oversight Committee.
Ziegler and Shapley painted a picture of a long-standing probe that began in 2018 into Hunter Biden’s income that was stymied and delayed at nearly every turn. The delays were significant—so significant that eventually the statute of limitations ran out. Ziegler said that the probe did not follow normal procedures. Prosecutors, he said, “slow-walked the investigation, and put in place unnecessary approvals and road blocks from effectively and efficiently addressing the case. A lot of times, we were not able to follow the facts.” Ziegler and Shapley also said there were times when prosecutors informed Hunter’s lawyers about investigative steps, such as a search warrant.
All of that would be bad enough. But the event that led Ziegler and Shapley to eventually blow the whistle was when, in October of last year, the U.S. attorney in charge of the case, David Weiss, privately told them that it was not his decision to charge Hunter in districts outside of Delaware. That directly contradicted the pledge that Attorney General Merrick Garland made to Congress that there would be no restrictions placed on Weiss in his investigation of Hunter.
These feel like bombshell revelations to me, but there is also a sickening feeling of two movies on one screen. This stuff is worthy of coverage in global mainstream media, right? Not just "bloggers on substack"?
I don't have a NYT or WaPo subscription. In the last five years, I have completely lost faith in mainstream media. Is this FBI stuff getting the coverage it deserves? Shouldn't something like this make a career for a scrappy Berenson type at the NYT? Are they salivating or putting their (and our) heads in the sand?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
Dreher’s Law of Merited Impossibility: X will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.
Is the BBC state sponsored media? N. S. Lyons says yes
And while the BBC claims it can operate with nearly three-quarters of its funding coming from the government (whoops, I mean "the public”) and still remain independent in its coverage, this is clearly nonsense. Any organization that relies overwhelming on a patron for its continued financial existence will do what that patron wants. Obviously. And thanks to leaked emails and WhatsApp messages we can peruse a real time record of how the government leveraged this deference during the pandemic, with, for example, an “IMPORTANT ADVISORY” email sent from senior BBC editors to reporters informing them that Downing Street was “asking” if they could please avoid using the word “lockdown” to describe shutting people in up in their homes – and thus only “curbs” and “restrictions” appeared in BBC headlines the next day. This has hardly been limited to pandemic exceptions. As one BBC inside source told The Guardian: “Particularly on the website, our headlines have been determined by calls from Downing Street on a very regular basis.”
Edit: Paging @SSCReader per this earlier discussion
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
In which case the obvious explanation for bias in the output of the system is bias in the input. The AI classifier doesn't understand what "men" or "women" or "are" or "awful" or "hateful" mean in the way we do.
Right, but in this case OpenAI is rebiasing the results, using human feedback, to what is shown in the blog post. The technique is known as RLHF, Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback. Humans reward the AI for classifying negativity toward women as hatred but not as much for men.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
9mo ago
Surprising, no. Scandalous, yes. The foundation of justice in this country is based on rule of law, as opposed to rule of man. Obviously, that's an ideal that we do not always meet. But the cavalier attitude towards abandoning this principle is very, very concerning.
1/2 (so far)
The Saga of Karl Kasarda
File under: Internet Drama
Dramatis personae:
Karl Kasarda is very real person with a significant internet presence, whom I have paid attention to since maybe 2015. He is (or has been) partners with Ian McCollum, who runs Forgotten Weapons, initially a website, mostly famous as a Youtube channel, and lately expanding to other social media platforms. If Forgotten Weapons is Ian's baby, InRangeTV is Karl's baby, though Karl has rarely (never?) made an appearance on FW, while Ian is (or used to be) a regular on IRTV.
Ian's focus is mostly on rifles and handguns, occasionally shotguns, and often military weapons. If it fires a brass cartridge, it's a potential Forgotten Weapon. While the focus is mainly on lesser known and rare weaponry, Ian won't hesitate to cover ubiquitous guns like the AR-15. He is also known as Gun Jesus for his long hair, mustache, and goatee, and his extensive research and authoritative takes on niche subjects.
Karl's competency is mostly based on competition shooting. He's a cerebral guy with a network security career, who has historically competed in "High Power" rifle disciplines, as well as "Cowboy Action Shooting". In the last 10 or 15 years, he has been a big promoter, host, and competitor in so-called 2 gun Action Challenge Matches, which are mostly defined in opposition to 3 gun competitions. There is plenty of history and internet words spillage regarding "2 gun vs 3 gun", but here's the gist: "3 gun" refers to rifle, pistol, shotgun, while "2 gun" omits the shotgun. "3 gun" as a discipline and community has a focus on precision without much physicality. "2 gun" as a discipline and community has a focus on effective shooting with lots of physicality (action challenge match).
Mostly within the last 5 years or so, InRangeTV has featured Russell Phagan, aka SinistralRifleman. He is a skilled 2GACM competitor, and good friend to Karl and Ian, who are all based out of Arizona (AFAIK). Russell works for KE Arms which manufactures firearms parts, largely for the AR-15 platform.
WWSD (What would Stoner do?)
In 2017, it was widely recognized in the American gun community that the AR-15 rifle (aka M16 or M4 in its military designation) (5.56mm ammunition, 16 inch barrel, gas operated, with a buttstock) is a pinnacle of engineering and design. It was designed by Eugene Stoner in the 1950s, as a scaled-down successor to the AR-10, which used a larger 30 caliber round (7.62 mm). It's pretty wild that here in 2023, the best all-purpose rifle for Americans was designed nearly 75 years ago. Have there been improvements along the way? Abso-fucking-lutely.
So now it's 2017, and what would Eugene Stoner do? Well, one of the unifying principles his early design was to use modern materials, like aluminum and polymer, to reduce weight for the same effectiveness. Polymer science was very primitive in 1950 before carbon fiber and modern epoxies. Both aluminum and steel production have become much more sophisticated, consistent, and reliable. Small parts tolerances have improved with CNC and modern milling machines.
I have a lot more to say here, but Karl and Ian came up with a modern "build" of an AR-15 rifle that uses carbon fiber and polymer along with modern metallurgy and design lessons learned from the last 75 years. Importantly, this design was based off of a polymer "lower receiver" for the AR-15, which is the item that the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives) considers a firearm. The milspec lower receiver is a chunk of forged aluminum that is then machined or milled to its final dimensions.
There have been many attempts at polymer lower receivers throughout the years, essentially all of which have been failures in function, design, or sales. The WWSD 2017 design was based off the CAV-15 from GWACS, which is a one-piece polymer lower receiver which includes the grip and the buttstock. The milspec lower receiver does not include the grip or buttstock and instead provides attachment points. The so-called "monolithic" design of the CAV-15 gives it extra strength and reliability relative to other polymer lowers.
Then, in 2020, just before the COVID pandemic hit, we have a product called "WWSD 2020". Partnered with KE Arms, Russell Phagan's company, Karl and Ian want to produce WWSD AR-15 Rifles to sell for a profit. First of all, due to their following, there are thousands or millions of enthusiasts trying to buy CAV-15 polymer lowers, along with carbon fiber handguards, and pencil profile rifle barrels, and the suppliers cannot keep up with demand. Second of all, of course, let's "monetize" this following. No shade.
I have a lot more to say but I am running out of steam. I will augment this post within 12 hours.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
6mo ago
I've seen many claims of Hamas militants being drug- or meth-fueled, along with some healthy skepticism of such. Based on what, exactly?
Hamas terrorists who carried out a surprise attack on October 7 were found to be under the influence of Captagon, a synthetic amphetamine-type stimulant that has been clandestinely produced in southern Europe and trafficked through Turkey to the consumer markets on the Arabian Peninsula, as reported by Nir Dvori of Channel 12.
The pills were recovered from the pockets of many terrorists who lost their lives on Israeli soil.
Captagon belongs to the amphetamine family and was initially developed to address attention disorders, narcolepsy, and depression. Despite its highly addictive nature and potential for inducing psychotic reactions, it continues to enjoy popularity in the Middle East due to its affordability and ease of manufacturing. In poorer countries, the drug can be purchased for a dollar or two, while in wealthier nations, it may cost up to 20 dollars per pill.
Its primary effects include arousing feelings of euphoria, reducing the need for sleep, suppressing appetite, and providing sustained energy.
According to medical professionals in Lebanon and Syria, Captagon is not only prevalent among fighters but is also frequently used by desperate civilians residing in conflict zones.
Once a source of revenue for ISIS members through drug smuggling, Captagon has now become a major source of income for Syria and is actively supported by Hezbollah.
Around two years ago, an investigation conducted by The New York Times revealed that individuals associated with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, including family members, had established a thriving industry for the production of Captagon.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
Really, that's the part that I tentatively describe as "gaslighting" (hate the term). One questionable "dude" makes an absurd claim, and the rest of Twitter NPC falls in line. When any neutral reader would accept Jesse's straightforward interpretation.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Wesley Yang (coined "Successor Ideology") interviews Corinna Cohn, former trans activist, now regretting his (born male, now prefers male pronouns) transition as a teenager in the early 1990s.
I seem to recall the name from maybe 5-10 years ago, with some annoyance, like maybe pushing ultrawoke Code of Conduct mandates on open source projects. Might be wrong, haven't yet checked.
Now Cohn acknowledges being male and rejects his transition, but for health reasons remains on estrogen treatment. I suppose there is some question of what it means to be a detransitioner. Wesley Yang is well equipped to tear into this lamb, and does so, as far as I can tell. This is gonna hurt.
I have only read the posted transcripts, a tiny sliver. An excerpt:
On Affirming Parents
Corinna:
“For every parent who is transitioning their child, here's the future: your kid is going to get into their 20s and 30s. somewhere in this range. Even the ones who are failing to launch are going to figure out how to actually get their shit together at some point. Every one of these kids is going to start to ruminate. “How did this happen to me?” None of them are going to say, “Why did I do this to myself?” Because they didn't have agency. They didn't know. It doesn't matter if they said, “Oh, I really, really, really want to be a girl, mommy.” They don't know. They've got no idea. They're not even going to remember that. Right? They're not going to know that.”
“They're going to start thinking — “How did this happen to me?” And they're going to get to know kids. They're going to get to know children. Newborn babies. They're going to be involved with the lives of these children. They're going to watch them grow up and become thinking human beings. They're going to even watch them become adults. And they're going to know what innocence looks like. And they're going to start to remember that their innocence was absolutely destroyed.
And they're going to want to know why. And they will know at the time — I'm telling, I'm telling you now that the reason that this happens is largely because of the sexual interests of men like Rachel Levine, Admiral Levine, and other men who have continual fantasies that they wanted to be little girls”
So you have you have sent these children to satisfy the fantasies of these men. These children when they become adults are going to realize that this is why their innocence was destroyed: to make these fantasies come true. And the first people who will get the blame for this will be their parents. That is the future. That is the future.
Wesley: So I don't remember his name, bu he's like, “I'm 28 Look at me. I'm puberty blocked…”
Corinna. That was Seth.
Wesley: That was so powerful. And you're saying like, that's gonna happen to all these fucking parents?"
Corinna: Yes. It will not matter to these adult children…
Wesley: …that they begged and demanded and connived in order to get this is…
Corinna: I’m not even talking about that part. It won’t matter to these kids that their parents’ calculus was they want zero of one child to commit suicide. They don't care about one in 20,000. They want zero of one to commit suicide.
They won't care about their parents’ concerns. A lot of them aren't going to be able to have their own kids and so they're never going to even learn how to think like a parent. They're always going to think like a child. They're not going to appreciate what their parents were up against — being lied to by the government. Being lied to by their president being lied to by their doctors.
They're going to think “my parents ruined me.” For what? Why did my parents did my parents do this to me
So parents: that's what you have to look forward to.”
Corinna is no lamb at all. This is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
these guys are getting soft-balled. It's almost staged.
I understand your point, but disagree. I felt kinda bad posting Rufo dunking on the Karen president, particularly in response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, but I also feel like we've seen tons of well-meaning administrators cave to the forces of safetyism and pearl-clutching in order to prevent certain views from being aired.
But there's kind of a structural bind here: if Karen wants to come back from this setback, she needs to go, ultimately, full Charlie Hebdo. There are of course many steps in that direction. But Karen now needs to pray for violence in order to prevent speech. Yet -- where security and safety are truly concerns, one may host debates in highly secure environments.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3mo ago
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivation behind the paintballs. The local citizens are not trying to solve the problem of homelessness, locally or globally. They are acting in their self interest, attempting to preserve the good aspects of their city and prevent them from sliding down into vagrancy, filth, violence, and drugs. This is a broad, human, historical civilizational norm.
Austin, SF, and Seattle violate this norm. They attract vagrancy rather than repel it.
If you want to solve homelessness, start with one. Pick a project person, take them into your home, let their problems become your problems, and I believe you will understand the nature of the solution and be able to advocate for it more effectively.
The Comanche and Apache, at the very least, felt the same way about the Americans, and other tribes, and behaved accordingly.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
9mo ago
a “bunker / shelter” that would be used for “some event where 50%-99.99% of people die [to] ensure that most EAs [effective altruists] survive”
This is especially galling coming from the guy who will flip a 50.1% coin forever at double or nothing on civilization's behalf. We might all be lucky he blew up "early".
2/2 (so far)
Note, this comment has been significantly updated and extended since first written (and replied to, sorry).
The fundamental difference between WWSD 2017 and WWSD 2020 is the monolithic polymer lower receiver, originally the GWACS CAV-15, and then later the KP-15 from KE Arms. The KP-15 is a successor design to the CAV-15 which had gone out of production (and with GWACS effectively dead as a business). While obviously inspired by the CAV-15 with similar features, it is a fresh redesign without reusing any specific design or feature from the CAV-15 while improving function with additional features (e.g. flared magwell). Extensive research and testing went into the production methods and polymer molds.
As KE Arms was ramping up production to meet the considerable demand for the monolithic polymer lower, two significant events occurred: GWACS sends a cease-and-desist to KE Arms over intellectual property concerns regarding the CAV-15, and a deal is struck with Brownells regarding marketing, distribution, and retail sales for the WWSD concept including both parts and complete rifles. KE Arms sues GWACS over the cease-and-desist, and GWACS countersues KE Arms as well as several related organizations and individuals. Kasarda is not named as a defendant but is deposed as a witness.
Fast forward to 2023. Due to COVID and legal interference, the production ramp-up for the KP-15 takes longer than expected, but the lowers are now produced in significant quantity, available from both Brownells and KE Arms directly. However, forum drama is about to upset the apple cart once again.
I wasn't aware of the forum drama or any of its basis until Karl himself posted to the InRangeTV subreddit, seeking consolation for what he felt were unfair attacks on him. The basis for the forum drama, as I was to find out, was mostly Karl's own social media posting, often under his InRangeTV brand. I was mostly just watching the YouTube channel, which had a pretty strict focus on guns, 2 Gun Action Challenge Match stuff, and occasional forays into First and Second Amendment issues and advocacy, along with complaints about Youtube content policies. The social media posting, mainly Instagram, was a different beast entirely.
One Father's Day, Karl posted:
Happy Father's Day!
Personally, I have chosen to not add more of us to this overpopulated planet as my gift to humanity. I highly recommend a vasectomy. Additionally, as a person of entirely Scandinavian descent, I am assisting with the extinction of the white race.
~Karl
Now, there is obviously some attempt at humor, here. Still, I find it pretty offensive and abhorrent. I love my dad, and it's largely because of him that I am comfortable with guns, gun safety, basic carpentry, basic mechanic skills, motorcycles, etc. To take something like Father's Day and twist it into a sick joke just rubs me the wrong way. Still, I have very thick skin and am pretty much a free speech absolutist, so Karl is welcome to hold and express these views. I just find the holder of such views to be disgusting.
He got a pretty negative reaction to this post, and tried to play it off as "just a joke" and not any sort of self loathing or promotion of genocide; it's not anti-white but anti-racist. Yet in the very same post and reply chain, he complains about white fragility. I find it very hard to square this circle. While I struggle to find the humor in the Father's Day post, there is a very obvious butt of the "joke". It's a troll post that targets white people in an attempt to expose white fragility (which he clearly admits).
A later post:
"DEATH to all who stand in the way of freedom for queer people"
This is pretty clearly a call to murder people, which Karl and his buddies attempt to deny. And which freedoms, exactly, are we talking about, Karl?
There is a lot more of this stuff, all posted by Karl to social media, going very much against the grain of American gun culture. As people started to notice this, compilations of Karl's material were posted to ar15.com forums. As the drama was blowing up, Brownells backed completely out of the WWSD deal, which Karl had some stake (5% of something, I forget) in.
I have some thoughts about what is motivating all this drama, which I will save for a further comment.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
Completely agreed. But I, for one, find him vindicated and gloriously so. So there's that.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
Based Chris Rufo demonstrates how to deny the heckler’s veto.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
9mo ago
after Mexico demanded the federal government make Texas remove them
What, exactly, is the argument for removing border barriers? Can we analyze the tradeoffs and incentives? Why are Mexico and USA seemingly interested in more illegal border crossings while Texas is not? What are the costs and benefits? What are the tradeoffs? It seems to me that if foreigners are penetrating a border, the recipient country is justified to install disincentives and defenses.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
6mo ago
While I can imagine how Hamas was able to get multiple vehicles across the border to Israel, it baffles me that they could take hostages and somehow just drive back. When a sensitive border like that is penetrated, shouldn't there be a 3 alarm fire type of response?
Like, if I was a Hamas gunman, I wouldn't expect to be returning home. Perhaps there is a special strategy for the hostage takers? How are we characterizing the border breach, and for how long did it remain unsecured?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
Keep in mind, this is the outcome of RLHF, the content moderation system, not unadulterated AI
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
Cue Alex Jones on location in Paris: "THEY'RE TURNING THE FROGS GAY!"
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
From an American point of view, while I'm totally sucked into supporting Ukraine and hating Russia's invasion, it's pretty nice that Russia is bleeding itself on the other side of the world with all kinds of internal tension and dissent. I have Ukrainian friends, and while I'd love to see Russia expelled immediately and peace restored, that is only a temporary reprieve from Russia's imperial ambitions. So while a grinding stalemate is terrible for Ukraine, I don't mind seeing the greatest geopolitical blunder in my lifetime be extended indefinitely to Russia's detriment.
I had honestly hoped for greater ties and reconciliation with Russia in 2005ish era. I wonder if that was truly a possibility or just foolish.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
Let me attempt some kind of steelman here. First, like you, I am extremely skeptical of grievance study courses, and particularly CRT. Second, while I think it’s fine to study these phenomena at arm’s length, often high school students assume they are being taught the truth, not merely one perverse angle on it. In 99% of my high school classes, it was obvious I was meant to internalize and adopt the teachings presented. Only the most careful of teachers could approach truly controversial topics. I have little confidence this can be maintained across our public high school education system.
Nonetheless. The course description describes what to expect at college. This is an AP class after all. I can’t argue with the course description, which certainly covers a great deal of CRT, even if seemingly out of proportion with its influence and impact on ordinary African Americans.
Now, Florida DOE is faced with a course description that it has significant disagreement with. They could design a curriculum that sideskirts all the CRT stuff, but then its students will fare poorly on the AP test. Which failure is a greater disservice to its students? Failing to prepare them for a very important test, or breaking the ban on CRT?
It would be nice if the College Board could separate the most controversial, politically charged aspects of their African American History into a seperate module, perhaps Advanced African American History. It seems we are forced to throw the baby out for the bathwater.
Jesse Singal gets gaslit
Also, a more neutral take: https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/about-that-twitter-shitstorm-affirmationnot
Brief recap:
NYT shifts its coverage of medical concerns for trans issues from 100% supporting transition in all cases to a more questioning stance, particularly with minors
An open letter is sent to NYT laying out "serious concerns with editorial bias" in response to this shift
Jonathan Chait posts a critical response to the open letter at New York Magazine (no relation to NYT)
Chait gets dragged on twitter for being anti-trans, with a highlighted passage
Jesse Singal posts in support of Chait, showing the highlighted passage is directly in accordance with WPATH guidelines and explains what it means
E. Kale Edmiston, a trans man, posts in response that he, Edmiston, wrote the WPATH guidelines posted by Singal, and that Singal is misinterpreting them
Liberal media pundits and reporters pile on, when Singal defends the straightforward interpretation, demanding that Signal accept Edmiston's (frankly bizarre) interpretation of the quoted passage
Singal has done his homework and contacts several other WPATH authors, who all confirm Singal's interpretation of the passage and reject Edmiston's
Eventually this reaches Scott Leibowitz, overall head of the WPATH guidelines document, who says that Edmiston definitely did not write the highlighted passage, and later severely admonishes this lying and false attribution from within academia
Singal performs several victory laps on Twitter, demanding from the media pundits and reporters the apologies and corrections they had demanded from him
Good guys: Jesse Singal, Jonathan Chait, Scott Leibowitz
Bad guys: E. Kale Edmiston, Madeline Leung Coleman (NYMag editor), Michael Hobbes, Jeet Heer, Marisa Kasabas (MSNBC Columnist), David Perry, Eric Vilas-Boas (Vulture staffer), Miles Klee, Siva Vaidhyanathan
The most interesting, dire, and relevant info is from Eliza Mondegreen, linked near the top. Apparently there is a wink/nod system with the WPATH Standards of Care document, where the words are written a certain way because they must be, but they are interpreted much differently.
She concludes:
EDITS: Signal, Single, Liebowitz. added Cast of Characters, Eliza Mondegreen quote
More options
Context Copy link