CBC⁠49%

Gender and sex: Looking back on 100 years of 'the worst scientific research' ⁠91%

By CBC Docs⁠0%

3/27/2024, 4:22:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Negativity Bias, and Hindsight Bias, with Politically Left Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 43.2% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 460 faulty-reasoning hits from 183 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (2,128 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.30% of the article peer group.

Today, the mainstream scientific consensus is that gender and sexuality exist on a spectrum throughout nature, but that hasn't always been the view. 
In Fluid: Life Beyond the Binary, a documentary from The Nature of Things, historian Jules Gill-Peterson and host Mae Martin look back on several milestones in the flawed (but still influential) history of gender science. 
"We're looking at about a century's worth of some of the worst scientific research telling us what gender and sex really are," Gill-Peterson says. 
In the video above, Gill-Peterson talks about conversion therapy, the shaming of kids whose behaviour strayed from gender norms, and an inspiring act of social justice by gay psychiatrist John Fryer. 
"When we look at this whole span of history, part of what it reminds us is that it's not just that science was conducted incorrectly, but that it really took people stepping up and challenging the way that science was practised to make it finally change," she says. 
Watch Fluid: Life Beyond the Binary on CBC Gem. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 6.0%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.3%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 2.8%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.9%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 26.2%CBC Docs: 0.8%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias26.2%This article: 13.1%CBC Docs: 2.8%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias13.1%This article: 16.9%CBC Docs: 9.0%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect16.9%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.8%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.6%CBC Docs: 1.0%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.3%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.5%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.4%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 39.3%CBC Docs: 11.3%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias39.3%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.0%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.8%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.2%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.8%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.5%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 3.6%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.3%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.4%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.4%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.6%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.6%CBC Docs: 5.4%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority12.6%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.9%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.1%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.2%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.1%CBC Docs: 5.0%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization13.1%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.6%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.1%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 8.0%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.7%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 2.3%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.9%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.6%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.2%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 5.1%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 2.3%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.3%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.3%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.9%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.1%CBC Docs: 5.3%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice7.1%This article: 26.2%CBC Docs: 0.8%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination26.2%This article: 43.2%CBC Docs: 1.3%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias43.2%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 41.0%CBC Docs: 4.0%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…41.0%

183 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker39%attributed speech111writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageJules Gill-Peterson • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageJules Gill-Peterson • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jules Gill-Peterson

100%flagged-word coverage
72 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -67.6 ptsWriter: 67.6%Jules Gill-Peterson: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+66.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jules Gill-Peterson: 66.7%66.7%Politically Left Leaning B+38.7 ptsWriter: 27.9%Jules Gill-Peterson: 66.7%66.7%Biased Writer Voice-11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%Jules Gill-Peterson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.