CharonY

Also, conviction differences tells us nothing about the likelihood of persecution. In cases of sexual assault and rape there are two major elements. First,is the low rate of actual reports, which is roughly comparable between males and females (<10%). Regular assault has a reporting rate of ~40% in North America. Second, even after reporting cases, conviction rates are very low for a number of reasons, including lack of evidence and high attrition rates (again, <10%). In other words, victims have a hard time to have perpetrators convicted. When we look at when charges are actually filed rather than final convictions, we find that (again using Canadian and US statistics) ~20-30% of all reports result in charges (again, not convictions). Interestingly though ~20% of cases are dismissed as unfounded. That is interesting, as depending on study, the estimated rate of false accusations is somewhere between 2-8%. Moreover, the rate of dismissals is higher than e.g. for non-sexual assault (~10%). In other words, sexual assaults allegations, once reported, are dismissed at a higher rate than other crimes. There are studies looking into these aspects and one (forgot the author) indicate that the characteristics of the victim, more than the circumstances determine whether police starts investigations. This includes judgement of the "moral" character of the victim, rather than, surprisingly, witnesses or injuries. I think the study was limited to a specific region and may not be universal, but it is interesting, nonetheless.

Wow, folks actually voted against an (alleged) child molester?

Note that you mention harassment while the quote was about sexual assault. In these cases women are ~10 times more frequently victims than men in most statistics. Notably, most males are victims of other males, perhaps for obvious reasons. Now harassment is quite a different issue, and the gender difference is lower (women experience it ca. 3x more often). A typical lifetime statistic in the USA shows something like 50% of women experience harassment and about 15% of men. The rate goes up for both genders in male-dominated environments (e.g. according to DOD data 2014 ~79% of women and 35% of men), again pointing to a leading role of men as perpetrators. I am not sure where you are going with this, though.

There is a systematic problem on many levels here. One is that conviction, even if pursued by authorities, is very low. There was an inquiry in the UK fairly recently and it showed that only about 8% of all reported cases lead to trial and convictions. As proving assault or rape is quite difficult, there is a sense among victims that moving on is better for them then getting involved in a process during which they may face significant repercussions (as in many cases they know the perpetrator) with little chance for a positive outcome. But there are also many examples where the cases are not properly investigated or simply ignored. Take a look for example at Maricopa Country, Arizona under ex-Sheriff Arpaio, where rape and sexual assault cases were in many cases simply ignored or mismanaged. Or check out the backlog on rape kit tests. Again, it takes a lot of effort, time and resources to fight against this momentum. And not everyone is able to afford that (mentally and fiscally)

I am not sure about the relevance of that. What would be the advantage over the opioids currently in use? Specifically, what would be the be its advantage over e.g. precisely dosed morphine? Hint: check the bioconversion of heroin once inside the body. Also, there is a reason why synthetic opioids are around. But for the bigger point, it is obvious that pain patients are not denied pain medication. In fact, overuse is one of the causes of the opioid crisis. It seems to me that the legal situation for pain patients is quite clear and is nowhere near the issue of addiction. Well, aside the fact that pain patients are at risk at becoming addicts.

That is a strange point to make. Pain medication is obviously legal...

Pain is perceived ultimately by activating brain networks that interpret incoming signals e.g. from nociceptors (to put it extremely simplified). Neurotransmitters including dopamine are part of the signal transfer mechanism, but it is not as if general release (or lack thereof) triggers pain. Rather, it depends on the activation of said pathways.

If even the definition of term is nontrivial, how can its evaluation be?

In my experience it is not quite that straightforward, except maybe at the extremes. Rather, it is very easy to gauge ones understanding in dealing with a specific topic or problem. But they may fail rather badly in other aspects (and of course there is a huge middle ground in between). There are students who grapple very long with abstract concepts. But put them in the lab where these things go together and are applied, they suddenly outperform those that did very well in tests. The easiest to spot are typically the lazy underperformers, who basically do not make any effort whatsoever (either because they think they are smart enough to get by without work or those who just don't give a damn).

I think the whole discussion only arises because most people do not understand the process or the perspective of transgender people. Therefore, there are many "what if" scenarios that for actual transgender persons are likely to be very straightforward.

http://wapo.st/2BIiYm6?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.dd81c558fc5f Seems that Franken has resigned. MigL , Ranger, I think you two talk on two different levels to each other. Ranger uses Trump to specifically the motivation in OP, and, from my reading, is not primarily a deflection of Franken's behavior. To some degree it is a legitimate point as OP is kind of set up to discuss this topic in partisan way (which we can pretty much acknowledge at this point). And I think in this context it is also fair to acknowledge that the discussion surrounding sexual harassment and the reaction toward it is clearly politically polarized. Yet, at least Franken seems to be ready to step down while others accused of more serious offenses still (or again) support. One could discuss the political ramifications (this is the politics thread after all) as well as the implication for victims of harassment or even abuse.

That is a bit oversimplified. The transition from a non-cancerous cell to a cancerous one does not need to undergo accumulation of mutations. Certain point mutations, often not in protective genes, but instead more often in genes involved in apoptosis or cell differentiation/proliferation and chromosomal stability (and quite often in the promoter region instead within the genes themselves). Over time, the chance increases that these types of cells go undetected and are not cleared by the immune system. Which, in turn why quite a bit of current efforts have been invested into immunotherapies to target this mechanism.

Effectively students should have read MSDS info and have safety instructions (which includes protective gear) before doing any work. It does sound that (s)/he may have been visiting a friend in the lab which is a big nono.

Perhaps. The reason why I think that is that the transition process is a lengthy process with a lot of counseling. Depending on what and how much is being done, the persons undergo a profound change in their bodies and usually are very well informed regarding the process and often understand their anatomy better than, well, non-transitioning folks. As such they will all know that their prostrate will remain and probably understand that they are susceptible to this form of cancer. It is equivalent to a women having a hysterectomy while keeping their ovaries and fallopian tubes. These women are likely not be more traumatized by the news of ovarian cancer as any other woman. I.e. regardless how I arrange the elements, I fail to see how transgenderism is adding an issue to the whole scenario.

https://nyti.ms/2BxZC3B In this article, a few studies are outlined which indicate that mutualistic relationships may be dependent on individual personalities. Thus mutualism may not be as straightforward as often depicted when one investigates these relationships with higher resolution.

I am not even sure where the potential for trauma comes from. Gender transition is typically only possible as adult and therefore they clearly unaware that they still have a prostrate in these cases. It really sounds like an extremely weird extrapolation just because something also to happen to be transgender.

I am not quite as positive about that. Certain groups, including the Hamas are fueling their power by declaring that the peace negotiations are biased against Palestinians. Often, they were forced to the negotiation table in order to demonstrate they themselves were not acting in bad faith. This step pretty much confirms to the Arab world that the negotiations were biased from the get go. My take is that this move is likely to empower the radicals while diminishing the influence of moderating forces.

Things like that make me unreasonably angry. We have a tool to limit human suffering, improve public health and it is the only likely way to actually eradicate diseases. And then idiots come and exploit the fear of parents and disease on the brink of extinction now come back. I really wonder about the motivation of these activists. Unless they are getting funded by the iron lung association, I am at a loss why anyone would be an anti-vaccine activist. It is pretty much like a campaign against seat belts.

That is a weird proposition. It is not as if transgender person (transitioned or not) suddenly forgot everything between birth and confirming their gender identity. And of course if there is any medical indication the persons should be notified. People have all kinds of differences and believe or not, if you have them, you are rarely traumatized with what is going on. I can pretty much guarantee you that a positive cancer diagnosis is going to be the most traumatizing event they are going to deal with.

What is the indicated risk of elevated PSA levels in transitioned persons? If there is no additional risk attached to it, reporting does not make sense (but why was it tested in the first place? On top of it, serum PSA is not a great marker (high false positive rate) and urinary PSA is even less reliable.

Empirically, there is good evidence that treating drug abuse as a medical and social problem is likely to have an overall better outcome than a (predominantly) criminal one. One big issue is the political atmosphere, as it is more intuitive for the voters to see police action rather than setting up needle exchanges, for example. The latter is seen as a drain on economy and promoting drug abuse whereas the former as taking hard actions. Yet as we (should) know now the war on drugs has done little to curb drug abuse, at the cost of a lot of money, lives and disproportionate incarceration of the poor. Small scale decriminalization in various countries seem also to positively affect outcome, while Portugal is an example that even on a large scale the net effects seems to be positive, especially in the area of public health but also virtually in all other relevant metrics. Again, at this point the biggest issue is political will.

1) you need to have it documented by the PI of the lab and/or the responsible safety officer 2) toxicology is absolutely relevant and folks should have instructed you to this extent. 3) why are you wondering about microbiological aspects? You were not handling bacteria, are you?

You require a motor license to use your vehicle on public roads.

This is not a strong argument. As a community, we pay for many things that we do not actually use. But we get other benefits that we could not afford on our own. I.e. people without children pay for schools, too, for example. I will say that if one makes vaccination a requirement, it should be either free or very close to that. This is, of course a completely different situation. Removing them from school is a step to protect other children (and their parents). This is a question of liability. As there is no intention of harm, assault and murder charges are not in discussion. At most it would be some level of negligence. So the question is mostly reduced to whether sanctions of any sorts are should be allowed to protect the children from risks. And so far, the answer seems to be quite straightforward as there are plenty of rules (e.g. use of car seats) in place to this effect. Considering that vaccination is relevant not only for the affected child but also has public health impact (as to creating reservoirs of disease or endangering immunocompromised folks) I do not see a good argument to make an exception specifically for this case.

No problem, it was what I meant with compliance. Though I see that I could have written it more clearly.