[Feedback] Wuk Lamat's English Voice

[Palitutu]

I read papers after papers thoroughly trying to better understand transgenderism, so I can better relate the trouble my sister has been suffering. I had been actively participating Pride events in support of love and acceptance. I listened to others that oppose LGBTQ movement and find their concerns not without merit. I started questioning the source of information within my social circles and I found myself moving away from LGBTQ movements as they evolve. I have a lot of details to offer but this is not the time and space.

I believe you.

The word you're looking for here is not science, but sociology.

Sociology is a science. Simply because the results it provides do not please you or because it does not adhere to the mental picture you have of "science," does not give you the right to call it a pseudo-science.

[Galvuu]

Snip.

I really, really don't want to get tangled in this discussion... but I have an academic background (physics and computer science), and it's relatively well-known that social science fields have a slew of issues with the crushing majority of their studies (failure to reproduce, p-hacking, data shopping, data manipulation, biased datasets and/or methodology, etc). This is so egregious it actually undermines the whole field, and if you run statistical analysis on it, you see the results often deviate from expected distributions (mostly normal ones) or that opposing, contradictory effects are shown to be statistically significant across different studies (often very dubious). Worse, social fields have an immense amount of "publishing bias"- like, even if you have a great study with great population sampling and no errors that shows a powerful statistical effect implying "men are substantially better at maths than women" or "white people are better at performing surgeries than black people", this would never get published in today's climate, no matter how strong the association would be. To be perfectly clear, I don't believe either of these things; in fact, I firmly believe the opposite and that these factors are mostly irrelevant for the performance of either of those fields, it was an hypothetical thought experiment to illustrate the publishing bias issue.
Tied to this, it's also the fact many social problems are ultimately a matter of morality- the scientific method can draw models from observation, but that's all it does. It's predictive and descriptive- it's not meant to answer a moral problem and, honestly, can't really do it.
I'm just sharing this in some degree of agreement with you.

But the bottom line is, I'd be hesitant to trust the so-called "science" on most social issues. For one, regardless of whichever side the conclusion leans on, the study is probably full of holes. And, furthermore, the scientific method is ill-equipped to offer any definite answer on the issue to begin with.
Just a little passing comment on this side of the discussion.

Doesn't really matter, because I believe in meritocracy, so the VA's gender identity, or sex, or ethnicity, or whatever is irrelevant. The performance was not of the quality I've come to expect in XIV, be it the delivery and range, the accent, the inconsistencies. It's not just Wuk's voice, either, but hers is definitely the worst of the bunch. At some points, I don't even know which emotion she's trying to evoke/project. All I'm left with is bewilderment and confusion.

[Palitutu]

It started with "reality" and "basic biology," it then became "be critical of the science" and now we're at "it's not really science at all." In between that we've had "listen to my singular example and ignores the millions of trans lived experiences" and "look at this science, I know I said above I am critical of science but I like this one."

That goalpost is moving so fast, it deserves a medal at the Olympics.

[IttyBittyShark]

It started with "reality" and "basic biology," it then became "be critical of the science" and now we're at "it's not really science at all." In between that we've had "listen to my singular example and ignores the millions of trans lived experiences" and "look at this science, I know I said above I am critical of science but I like this one."

That goalpost is moving so fast, it deserves a medal at the Olympics.

[BigBoom550]

I believe you.



Sociology is a science. Simply because the results it provides do not please you or because it does not adhere to the mental picture you have of "science," does not give you the right to call it a pseudo-science.

For background before anyone gets testy: I have raided and been friends with several transgender individuals for years. I hate that I have to say that, but it is what it is.

There is absolutely a replication and bias crisis in the social sciences at the moment, as well as a general data crisis. It's difficult, if not impossible, to replicate many studies, and data fudgery is a catastrophic problem.

I'm not going to go into detail past that because it is, frankly, irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Sena Bryer did an unacceptably poor job of voicing the character, in a role others have pointed out Bryer knew she could not fill.

Defending Sena Bryer on the basis that she is transgender is wrong, not morally, but for the fact that it is completely unrelated to criticism of her performance.

In the same vein, criticism on the basis of transgenderism is also wrong as again it is irrelevant.

The entire discussion about hot dogs or tacos is a complete sidestep to the issue at hand.

Bryer was placed in a role that they were not nearly ready to take on, and that's it. That's the entire problem. I'm going to criticize them on the same basis I would anyone else, and that is I paid for a product with a history of better production quality than this, and I did not receive acceptable quality. That's it, that's the entire point.

[Isala]

I really, really don't want to get tangled in this discussion... but I have an academic background (physics and computer science), and it's relatively well-known that social science fields have a slew of issues with the crushing majority of their studies (failure to reproduce, p-hacking, data shopping, data manipulation, biased datasets and/or methodology, etc). This is so egregious it actually undermines the whole field, and if you run statistical analysis on it, you see the results often deviate from expected distributions (mostly normal ones) or that opposing, contradictory effects are shown to be statistically significant across different studies (often very dubious). Worse, social fields have an immense amount of "publishing bias"- like, even if you have a great study with great population sampling and no errors that shows a powerful statistical effect implying "men are substantially better at maths than women" or "white people are better at performing surgeries than black people", this would never get published in today's climate, no matter how strong the association would be. To be perfectly clear, I don't believe either of these things; in fact, I firmly believe the opposite and that these factors are mostly irrelevant for the performance of either of those fields, it was an hypothetical thought experiment to illustrate the publishing bias issue.
Tied to this, it's also the fact many social problems are ultimately a matter of morality- the scientific method can draw models from observation, but that's all it does. It's predictive and descriptive- it's not meant to answer a moral problem and, honestly, can't really do it.
I'm just sharing this in some degree of agreement with you.

I'm just reminded of how many people believe that vaccines cause autism, because one dude made it up. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and make up "science" to back up their claims.

[Galvuu]

It started with "reality" and "basic biology," it then became "be critical of the science" and now we're at "it's not really science at all." In between that we've had "listen to my singular example and ignores the millions of trans lived experiences" and "look at this science, I know I said above I am critical of science but I like this one."

That goalpost is moving so fast, it deserves a medal at the Olympics.

Being critical of science is the cornerstone of science itself. Scientific models are known to always be approximate, and being corrected over time as more data and more powerful tools surface. This is true for every science. Of course, one cannot be expected to verify everything every time, but a healthy dose of skepticism is really what science is all about. Not gonna comment on anything else, but I thought I'd let this comment stay because people sometimes think of science as this timeless monolith, when it's more like a self-correcting collection of models we know aren't complete to begin with... they simply explain and predict the data to the best of our current ability.

Edit: funny enough, I often raid with two trans people, and they both hate Wuk Lamat's voice, so clearly there's something objectively off about that performance. I don't like adding things like these because it should be irrelevant who I raid with, but I find it funny that, in my circle, her performance is universally disliked, regardless of nationality or gender or anything.

[Palitutu]

Defending Sena Bryer on the basis that she is transgender is wrong, not morally, but for the fact that it is completely unrelated to criticism of her performance.

Where are those people "defending her performance because she is transgender?"

There is a lot of pushback against the transphobic attacks, like the person above purposefully misgendering her. But I have yet to see anyone say her performance shouldn't be attacked because she is trans. We wouldn't be here to defend her from the transphobic attack if people were adults and attacked her performance without sliding in insults.

[Raven2014]

I'm just sharing this in some degree of agreement with you.

But the bottom line is, I'd be hesitant to trust the so-called "science" on most social issues.

I know, my profession is in statistical analysis, that's why model and method is always the first thing I question. So you can say it's a pet peeve of mind seeing people abuse the science name. Any one with decent familiarity with it would understand the monumental task it is to establish an objective study, and 10x harder to arrive at a conclusive answer. I always kinda ... piss me off seeing how lightly people taking the process for granted.


Especially when I feel it's wholly unnecessary. As much as I respect science, I don't believe it has to be omnipotence in our decision making. After all, it would be like handling governance to an AI that would operated on pure cold - hard logic. Computer doesn't have moral, objective science doesn't really care about right or wrong, but we DO. That's the whole reason why we put ethical barriers around scientific research so it doesn't violate our moral standard instead of just go all in the name of science. So isn't that a bit comical why some people think we need science to guide our principal?

Fake or true doesn't matter, I don't need science to tell me I should treat other human with respect, I don't know why some people think that's relevance. And by "some people" I'm pointing to people on both side of this debate. And by claiming unnecessary and bogus science to push an agenda, it damages the reliability of science where it will actually be relevant and matter (like climate change or vaccination).

[Bananarama]

Other than the massive elephant in the room, did anybody else get the feeling that Wuk Lamat's(English) voice was being modulated, or edited somehow?