The Moose

Confounding Factors or Claptrap?

Another one from over at Tim Worstall's place, worth commenting on:

The death rate for female patients was 8.15 per cent when treated by female physicians compared to 8.38 per cent when the physician was male.

It means that in every 1,000 patients treated, an extra two would be expected to survive if they were treated by a woman.

Ohh, a study*. And surprisingly enough for 2004, it's a study that says something bad about men

(*Paywall)

A study in February found there is still “considerable gender inequality” in surgical fields in England and Wales and that “surgery is still a specialty that struggles to recruit women”.

You know what is another speciality that struggles to recruit women? ~~Binmen~~ Refuse Collection. Funny how the studiers of these studies, only ever moan for women in the nice, high paying jobs where they don't get shit all over them from dawn till dusk

Anhoo, Tims take on this?

Quite so, there are distinct gender inequalities across fields of medicine. Maybe the birds are more likely to be treating the easier stuff?

Could be. Confounding factors usually do play a large role in junk science

You know what I think though? The only factors in play here are, "We need to do a study, so give us some money. Our study will find that men are bad, so give us more money"

Just wait. Next to come will be the study that tells us less black patients die when treated by black physicians, or less trans patients die when treated by surgeons in frocks

I grew up in a time when segregation of society was frowned upon. Look how far we've progressed

Insecure White Boys

No it's not a search term for some weird porn, it's the Royal Museum in Greenwich

Queen Charlotte was ‘person of colour’, museum claims in LGBT guide

It's modern wokness in a nutshell. That the museum has an LGBT guide, and that the guide has to incorrectly claim that historical figures were black. It's wokness gone mad, I tell you!

Royal Museums Greenwich tells visitors that despite what ‘insecure white boys’ have said, George III’s wife was from a non-white background

The above link is to the Telegraph, which only gives us this snippet before asking for money, however Tim Worstall provides a little extra

Queen Charlotte was a “person of colour”, a museum’s LGBT audio guide has wrongly claimed.
The audio guide for the Royal Museums Greenwich tells visitors that despite what “insecure white boys” have said, George III’s wife was the first British royal from a non-white background.
Queen Charlotte’s purported ethnicity has been sidelined because of “structural racism”, according to the guide, which states that she was a “person of colour”.

"Insecure White Boys". It's the only way the woke can form an arguement. If you disagree with our incorrect statement, it's because you are insecure. Not correct, insecure

If fact that short insult is three for the price of one. Radical feminists will tell us it is insulting and degrading to refer to a woman as a 'girl', so I assume using the juvenile term for a male is intended as an insult in this context

'White' has been an insult since woke began, so 'insecure', 'white' and 'boy' is three insults neatly packaged as a conversation stopper

Well I don't mind being called white and I don't mind being refered to as 'boy' (I'm 48), and not believing that Queen Charlotte was black, does not make me insecure, just correct

I'm going to let you into a little secret now. I've no idea who Queen Charlotte is. As far as I know, she could have been a disabled, blue skinned Native American man with a fetish for girdles, but if an LGBT guide tells me she was not a white woman, I'm going to go out on a limb and believe she was a white woman

Queen Charlotte was a “person of colour”, a museum’s LGBT audio guide has wrongly claimed.

Doesn't matter that it's right there in the article

And what's all this 'person of colour' nonsense? I remember when black people used to be black (Even Michael Jackson). To me, the term person of colour, just says not white. Others. Anyone who isn't white. Them.

Black is a description, person of colour is anyone else without a description. I'm not sure why black people would want to be called that

Of course I haven't had their lived experience of structural racism, so who am I to talk?

Jumping to Conclusions

I just read this in my MSM feed:

Signs twinning seaside town with Israeli city removed

Bloody local councillors! What on Earth has Israel / Gaza got to do with them?! Why is it fashionable for political non-entities to side with Palestinian nut-jobs anyway? Arse! Etc...

There were four signs on the outskirts of Bournemouth, Dorset recognising one of its twin cities – Netanya in Israel.

But the signs have now been taken down by an unknown person, sparking uproar in the coastal resort.

Typical! The council didn't ask the locals or even told them it was happening!

A spokesman for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council said it was not responsible for taking down the signs.

“We have been made aware that some signage has been removed at Mountbatten Roundabout and several other locations,” the spokesman said.

“We are currently looking into this issue.”

Oh...

Michael Filer, chairman of the twinning committee, said: “It could possibly be nothing, no problem whatsoever, that somebody is doing some kind of repair work or the other kind.

“But there could be unpleasant intent... we would like to get them back. Bournemouth has been twinned with Netanya, who went through the Bournemouth council some 20 years ago, and there have been inter-town visits on a frequent basis.

“I look forward to them being put back again and carrying on with normal procedures.”

Looks like I was wrong. They've been nicked by some pro Hamas terrorist supporter. Or maybe some local left-wing student

I'm not sorry though. I jumped to the conclusion that it was the doing of the local council, because 99 times out of a hundred, it would be

I've now jumped to the conclusion that it will be some colloege kid wearing Palestine flags, who wants to smash Capitalism. Because the other 1 time out of a hundred, it would be

Unless the council are lying thier arse off...

Shurrup

Guess what day it is. It's yet another day of raising awareness of men in dresses

I don't think there's a single person on the planet that isn't fully aware of LGBTs by now, yet we keep having to 'raise awareness', day in, day out, with regular monitiny

Thankfully, today is the one day of the calendar year where LGBT campaigners actually shut the fuck up for once

Lefty Logic

I say Lefty Logic, but I'm actually only guessing she's a lefty. This conversation left me so confused, I could be wrong. Anyway, I like to share my pain, so here goes:

The story I'm reading:

Doctor: “It’s been twenty-five days. You’re probably pregnant.”

Me: “There are a couple of issues I take with your statement. It’s been twenty-three days; these little numbers tell me that. Since I started at eleven years old, my cycle has been twenty-five days. My girlfriend’s is twenty-eight days, and I have a friend who has a regular medically checked-out forty-day cycle. Second, I’m not able to get pregnant because I live with, sleep with, raise a cat with, and have sex with another uterus owner.”

I’m non-binary; we use trans-inclusive language.

I'm of the opinion that such trans inclusive language may well include trans folks, but it also EXcludes women folk. There's certainly no women I know, who would be happy to be reduced to an owner of a body part, when being referenced

So I chirped up

Of course, leaving such a comment is bound to provoke an answer, particularly when it's couched in an obviously disrespectful manner

Oh well, my bad...

Makes little sense to me, that. At first I thought she had replied to my comment in error and actually intended on commenting on the story. In essence, to expand on what I was getting at, and say a person with a uterus is a woman, even if she looses the uterus. Or something

It must have made sense to her, because she had the gaul to question my logic

Sometimes I just can't hold my tongue

Eh? Seriously, what?

So I didn't say that a woman born with a uterus who later doesn't have one, is not a woman. I didn't say a woman who can't have children isn't a woman. I did say (in my own way) that women shouldn't be reduced to their reproductive organs

She's clearly disagreeing with me here, but I'm finding it hard to figure out why. The bits that seem to make some sense, seem to agree with what I said originally. The bits that make no sense just shoot off on some wild tangent

Hopefully that should clarify things and put this issue to bed

Oh...

Yes I know! Which is why we shouldn't be refering to women as uterus owners

Ok, so now we've established we're both in agreement, that should clarify things and put this issue to bed

Oh...

I have a policy when talking with nonsensical lefties: When the conversation descends into madness (and it always does) just walk away. As you can see from this conversation, I don't stick to my policy and usually end up having to open my gob a few more times. I never learn, you can't play chess with a pigeon