from this month's JAMA Internal Medicine
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2753117

Why the RSS threads of late? This is another whereby information is just dropped into an OP with no context [and from the same source]. What are your own thoughts on this? Why are you presenting it?

What's RSS?

I don't understand this comment.

This is a datum. I hadn't thought about it, but had I, I would have presumed that any new apparently-neutral (which I presumed Twitter was; I don't use it) medium gave women a chance to gain equal footing. Now I have reason to doubt.

This is an article in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

Try hard troll.

<sarcasm> Wait a minute, I thought that men and women were exactly the same. So much so that someone could decide if they want to be a boy or girl, just by saying it. Because gender is just a construct..blah blah.

Why wouldn't women be doing exactly the same as men on something. And why would one side need special treatment?

How could there be a difference in men and women doing something when men and women are exactly the same? I don't understand that. It's almost as if men and women are biologically different. More than just plumbing.

I think that someone should be charged with a hate crime here for allowing this to happen.</sarcasm>

Or to put it another way,

Since all of this problem comes from male superiority and men discriminating against women, and it being institutionalized...

Why don't all of those women declare themselves to be men. And force everyone to recognize them as men, addressing them as Sir...problem solved. Women will automatically be the same on Twitter as men.

Because there is no intrinsic difference between the woman and mans brain from the womb, due to different chemicals interacting with the brain chemistry, that causes the two brains to act and think differently, that would account for the different performance of men and women on certain subjects...

Have everyone identify as men.

Problem solved. I could maybe be in line for a Nobel prize for this one.

Perhaps not relevant but I was a big "Tweeter" and recently dropped the platform completely because of the incessant whining about gender inequality. I personally could care less whether you are male, female, trans, gay, etc, I care about what you have to say, not what your genitals are...in my InfoSec Twitter circles, all people did was complain about inequality for various genders. I was there for InfoSec data sharing only, which rarely happened...

Big problem with any Internet platform is there are always trolls because people feel anonymous. Nothing can be done about it except self-policing.

I would ask instead - how exactly is Twitter not supposedly giving "women a chance to gain equal footing"?

User with "troll" in name is troll.

Threads like this are, likely, the cause of such articles in the first place.

clickbait is clickbait and the only thing most posters of "news" on the internet want are advert views.

Sorry to have added to this advert-selling trash thread.

How do genitals come into twitter accounts?
Some new form of captcha?

I'll qualify my comments for the benefit of the forum.

An 'RSS thread' acts like an RSS news feed whereby an OP drops some news, information or current event sensation into their opening post with no context, justification or personal views on the matter.

I thought it was pretty clear but maybe the 'same source' part was slightly confusing - I meant that you created another similar thread very recently which also quoted from the same journal.

That's fine, but the internet is full of data, so really, this is the main part where the opening post falls over:

When creating an opening post like this, it's best to give some personal views on why it matters to you and why you want the forum to engage in a discussion about it.

There are a few academics on this forum, and they don't start a new topic every time they open a journal. So really some reasoning as to why this topic mattered to you would have been nice. I hope my response is a little clearer now.

So results evidence.

I don't find them similar.

I don't think my personal view matters. I don't know that anyone wants to discuss the matter. It is a datum that may interest some.
I'm not an academic.

I read hundreds of articles a week. I post on about 1 in 10K.

This article is available only to paid subscribers; subscription costs $293/year. I cited it not so that you could read it but so that you could know its source.

Really, please can people stop with this shit.
This continual, false grading of everything against every single other thing is giving us nothing.
These "revelations" only help people sell stories and print money.
f' that. This kind of headline is deliberately divisive.
Apologies to the OP for accusations of trolling (irony allowed) but this is not news, it is propaganda.
Of

Eating watermelons and grapes has done nothing measurable to further gender equality.

What do watermelon and grape farmers have to say in defense of why they have done so little to help with this problem?

Every time someone eats a grape or a slice of watermelon, they need to STOP and think about how these fruits are only contributing to the problem just by doing nothing. Pretty shameful, watermelons and grapes. Personally I'm going to show them what I think by switching to apples and oranges instead.

I missed this, that is hilarious! They put up a divisive headline, try to cause arguments and charge to read the excreta they produce.
Really, proper, actual, non-sub-human-scum need to retake the internet before these hatemongering, money-grabbing things make world war 3.