Friday, April 13, 2018

Yes, this actually is sexist. But is that necessarily a problem?

In the facebook comments section (yes, yes, I know) of an NPR article about the gender disparity of OB/GYNs, I read the following comment:
I have never seen a male OB GYN. I have always sought female doctors. It used to be difficult to find female providers. All of my OBs have also been mothers. I refuse to take advice regarding something as life altering as birth from someone who has no experience of their own.

As one can well imagine, there were MANY comments following that statement, and they generally fell into three different categories:

1. The most numerous were mostly from men who were making points like:

I will never take advice from a cardiologist that hasn't had a heart attack.


2. The next were almost all from women, who were making points like:
I don't have kids, but I would want someone who knows what it feels like to be pregnant and give birth. That's a perspective a male can never give, so if the woman prefers that her doctor DOES have that perspective, what's the big deal?

3. The final set (and the least numerous) were mostly from women (although there were some fathers mixed in there), who were making points like:
I have had my pain blown off by female doctors that couldn't believe my cramps were so bad. My favorite OBGYN was male. He was by far the most understanding and empathetic gyno I've seen.


But I was arrested by the following comment.

I agree with with original commenter. Ive always had female obgyns and midwives. Not all have had children of their own. It's not sexist to prefer to be seen by women. On a very basic, primal level, I did not want men around me when I gave birth. I wanted a woman each time.

Specifically, the point that stopped me was the simply stated sentence, "It's not sexist to prefer to be seen by women."

Hold on. Whut?

Change the gender or substitute race, and the bigotry of the statement becomes clear.

"It's not sexist to prefer to be seen by men."

Yeah, that's a sexist statement. If the whole basis for choosing a doctor boils down to whether the individual has a penis and testicles (or even possibly simply displays or identifies as male), then that's a sexist reason for choosing a doctor.

"It's not racist to prefer to be seen by whites."

Yeah, that's a racist statement. If the whole basis for choosing a doctor boils down to the melanin content of the individual, then - given how skin melanin content defines race in the US context (at least in terms of white vs. not-white), then that's a racist reason for choosing a doctor.

Similarly, it is definitely classist to say, "It's not classist to prefer to be seen by a doctor from a good family," and it is definitely ethnically insensitive to say, "It's not discriminatory to prefer to be seen by a Chinese doctor." So why would someone think and state unequivocally that, "It's not sexist to prefer to be seen by women"? I'm guessing because they are thinking two things:

1. "I'm not a bigot," and
2. "I feel comfortable with female doctors."

There could also be a bit of conflation between individual and societal sexism going on, but the presence of societal sexism (i.e., women being far less capable of exerting or having a societal effect that privileges women over men) doesn't mean that individual sexism (i.e., evaluating a particular individual's competence based solely or heavily on their sex) doesn't exist. This is definitely true in the case of racism, where societal racism (i.e., the greater levels of privilege held by whites vs. other races of similar backgrounds) doesn't negate the presence of individual racism (e.g., a black woman refusing to date an Asian man, because [insert racial stereotype of Asian men here]).

Okay, but is it wrong to have an individual preference?
 
I'd argue that it isn't necessarily wrong, per se. It's okay and perfectly natural to have preferences.
 
In the case above, it's perfectly okay and understandable to want to feel comfortable with any doctor you have, regardless of specialization.
 
What is wrong (at least to my perspective) is to have blinders on about the reasons for those preferences, especially if one's argument is based on taking the moral high ground (which the responding comment seems to try an do). In other words, to deny that one's comfort comes from inherent bias (based on sex, parental status, gender, socioeconomic background, race, or something else) is ultimately being dishonest. And if one is committing such denial in order to make a moral point about how one's choice that is inherently bigoted at the individual level isn't actually a bigoted choice, then that person's argument really should lose all merit.

In response to the comment, it is - definitionally - sexist to prefer a doctor based on the genitals they have (and the assumed life experiences they have accumulated based on what genitals they have). But if that's the factor that makes you comfortable when having someone take care of you, then you better be comfortable with that, instead of denying it up and down. What can help is to accept that the decision is made because of the sex of the individual (and the assumed life experiences based on that sex), and then to determine whether such criteria actually are merited, based on one's larger world views. Therefore, if one actually is and has no issues being a sexist, then such self-examination will mean that there is no problem; no inherent discordancy between intent and action. If, conversely, one believes themselves not to be a sexist, then such self-examination will (hopefully) mean that they will encounter a discordancy between their actions and their intentions, and that can lead to reviewing their choices.

But to deny that choices based on sex aren't sexist, because [insert rationalization here]? That just sets up a system of denialism that serves no one, including the person making the rationalizations.

And - at least to me - that speaks to larger societal contexts (and costs) of admitting that personal actions may be even the smallest bit bigoted. That cost is really high, which makes public admission of such motivations really difficult to do, which promotes denialism as well as promoting a sense of tribalistic protectionism. All of which makes any sense of progress even less likely.

Ah, well. I've said my two bits.

Friday, January 26, 2018

Chile calls uses the wrong name for berries

Chile is a major agricultural producer for international markets. However, its domestic market for fruits typically sold to the international market is still relatively new. This means that Chileans are learning about fruits and vegetables being grown for other parts of the world, and most of these foods don't have much of a strong history in Chilean culture, and so people are pretty open to learning a series of sounds that they then associate with what that item is. However, the sounds used to describe these fruits and vegetables are often inconsistent with what other parts of the Spanish speaking world refer to the same item. Not only that, the words used in Chile are either do not make distinctions that are made in other languages or they are a word that literally describes a completely different plant.

Case in point: cranberries.

Cranberries are native to wetlands of North America. However, they are grown in Chile, too. But for the longest time, the word that was used in Chile for "cranberry" was "arándano," which is the word used for blueberry. What makes matters worse is that the Spanish-language Wikipedia page that links to cranberry is.... "Arándano rojo" (red blueberry).

Also: redcurrants.

Similarly, the word "arándano" was also used to describe redcurrants. This has recently changed, and now redcurrants are "zarzaparillas." Okay, so the name has changed to make them distinct from blueberries (which are still referred to as "arándano"), but this has entered into a different problem: "zarzaparillas" are an actual fruit that has next to no relationship with redcurrants (or currants of any kind). Let me explain. "Zarzaparilla" is the common smilax, which is found around the Mediterranean. It is a monocot evergreen climber that happens to have bunches of dark-red berries. In comparison, redcurrant is a deciduous shrub that also happens to have bunches of berries, but these are bright red and somewhat translucent.

In other words, there is nothing at all similar between smilax and redcurrant, except that they happen to have red berries. Even if the berries aren't at all the same kind of red.

But just how dissimilar could two red-berry plants be? Well, smilax is a monocot and redcurrant is a eudicot, which means that their common ancestor had to have existed prior to the monocot-dicot divergence.... which took place 140-150 million years ago. So the common ancestor of these two plants was at least this long ago. To put that in perspective, this was right around the end of the Jurassic period, which means dinosaurs: the last time these plants had a common ancestor was when dinosaurs were walking around.

Apparently, the word used in other parts of the Spanish-speaking world for redcurrants is "grosellas." So why doesn't Chile just use "grosella"? Because it's already used for describing blackcurrants.

Ah well.....

Friday, January 05, 2018

Some people don't understand what a scientific definition is (or how to actually respond to points raised in a comment)

Recently, a friend posted the statement: "There are only two genders: male and female. Do you agree?"

This provoked a stream of comments. Most happened to take a position that favored the proposition. But then I noticed this statement:
This is a scientific question, based on data; it is not a philosophical one. Does the subject have "XX" chromosome or "XY" chromosome? It's very simple. It has nothing to do with judgment. One could inject hormones, do plastic surgery, alterations, makeup, etc. etc. all they wish, but the "XY" and "XX" chromosome will forever determine sex. It's a simple fact. 200,000+ years of evolution will not change due to the minority whims of certain members of a society.
*Sigh* As it was written, the position doesn't actually support it being a scientific question, but rather a position based around some science, while leaving out a bunch of other science. It also fails to equate sex with gender, which - in biology - are not always considered the same thing. So, to this I decided to reply:
As you laid it out, your comment has a few issues that need to be dealt with before you can call it an airtight argument.

First, are you defining "sex" and "gender" as the same thing? (Note: this isn't itself a scientific question - which you say your
explanation is - but a cultural and philosophical one. Science can work from whichever definition is used, but science itself doesn't say one way or the other, since determining the degree of synonymous-ness isn't a scientific question.)

Second, where do intersex individuals fall in your schema? (Intersex being individuals who are XXY or XYY or some other combination of more than two sex chromosomes.)

Third, where do XX embryos that have developed in environments with lots of androgens or XY embryos that developed in environments that blocked androgen production fall into your schema? (This refers to the many developmental studies in which high levels of androgens during development cause marked sexual behavioral changes that mimic that of the other sex.)

Fourth, there have been far more than 200,000+ years of evolution when it comes to mammalian sexual reproduction. (In other words, by restricting it to the last 200,000+ years, it seems that you are indicating that this is a particularly *human* issue, which circles back to the rationalization of the first point I listed, above. This is a scientific question, since restricting the evolutionary period to merely 200,000+ years means that the discussion is not about sexual reproduction in mammals in general, but to humans specifically.)

If you respond to these four points, then your argument could be drastically improved. However, as a scientist, I can tell you that your argument, as it currently stands, isn't really well-formulated scientific argument.
Although it's lengthy, I was pointing out that this guy needed to address four things for his argument to be more scientific:
  1.  Define "gender" in terms of its relation with the term "sex."
  2. Explain how to manage with intersex individuals within his definition.
  3. Explain how to manage with individuals who developed with heightened androgens within his definition.
  4. Explain how his limitation to 200,000+ years of evolution is sufficient to explain sex differences, the presence of intersex individuals, and the impact of androgen environments on brain development.
Seems pretty straight-forward, no? Okay, maybe it's not easy to do, but what I got back was laughably indignant:
Umlud, your total argument is false. First off, bastardization of the language. Sex and Gender are interchangeable in this case.  [Presentation of dictionary definitions as opposed to science-based definitions.]You can play with words and bastardize their definitions all you want. But words have meanings.

*There is much debate in the scientific community over the XXY chromosome (Klinefelter Syndrome - an anomaly)
also:
These occur in 1 out of about 50,000 males. It generally does NOT make them "feel like a woman in a man's body."
Please prove that it does, you might win a Nobel Peace Prize.
Wow. It seems like this guy didn't really get past point 1, and it doesn't seem like this guy really understood what I was saying in my comment. My point was that he needed to determine how sex and gender were related, and not make a commentary on whether sex being different from gender is a bastardization - a claim that I never made. (Take heed: he will continue to make commentaries on claims I don't actually make.)

As for there being "much debate" about people with Klinefelter Syndrome... I don't know what he's talking about. As far as I know, there is no debate about the existence of Klinefelter Syndrome. And it is bloody clear that XXY is not the same as either XX or XY, which were the only two examples he was providing in his "scientific" definition. And note - for the second time in one comment - he responds to a claim that I never made ("It generally does NOT make them 'feel like a woman in a man's body'").

So, I try again:
Thanks for your response, but you have failed to harmonize point 4 with your position on point 1.

As for the response to point 2, you haven't actually incorporated it into your position, especially given how you have chosen how to respond to poi
nt 1.

I don't see your response to point 3.

As of right now, you haven't revised your initial argument, taking into account of the deficiencies I have pointed out. You have only given definitional answers to the points I raised, which is not the same thing as actually using those definitions to improve on your deficient opening argument. Even though I don't agree with your thesis, I remain more than happy to help you craft an argument with far fewer internal errors than what you have.

Let me know if you'd like that assistance or if you're happy to let your faulty argument stand as-is.
I was thinking that - maybe if I pointed exactly to the things that he should be addressing - he might actually come up with answers to the critiques I proposed. I had hoped that this would be enough. Boy was I wrong:
Nope. Your argument is off from the get go. Your definitions are crooked. No sense in arguing if someone is going to choose definitions of terms ad lib: Basic Law 101. Hey [moderator] I thought you were going to delete this post (for the litany of arguments I did post that tore Umlud's arguments to pieces and addressed what he wrote - as I predicted he would - (that FB stopped me from posting - as evidenced by the screen captures sent to you by private message.) I can’t argue fairly if FB blocks me from doing so. So I’m out.
Apparently, someone flagged his comment, which is annoying, especially when there is a nice back-and-forth going on between two people who (appear) to be happy with continuing with that back-and-forth. But what I find hilarious is this guy's continuing preference to respond to claims I never made. This time it's a return to a presumption that I am the one choosing definitions (I'm not; I was letting him choose his own definition). His moaning that his comment - where he "tore my arguments to pieces" - was lost. Oh, well, if it was so good, I'm sure that he could just write it again - maybe with an even better presentation. And then he made this statement (presumably about people who have Klinefelter Syndrome):
Jeez... There’s a reason they called anomalies...
Ooooh, boy. He makes this statement without understanding the ramifications of saying that people with Klinefelter Syndrome are anomalies...? (I am being kind and assuming that he means it in a statistical sense, and not in some normative sense.) But if he is saying that it is statistically anomalous to have Klinefelter Syndrome, how does that square with being transgender? Both are statistically anomalous, but that doesn't mean they don't exist! And if he is happy to exclude people with Klinefelter Syndrome from his definition, then why is he not willing to exclude transgender people, too?

... and he still never addressed the question about people who develop in high androgen environments! Given his position on people with Klinefelter Syndrome, and his stated position on people who are transgender, then what is his position about people who develop with major hormonal exposure?

But before I could formulate a full response (I was on my phone at the time), he shoots off two short comments, which erode the validity of his initial position:
Refer to the words “both genders.” Your initial premise is wrong.
I have reviewed the texts. No one has ever written "both genders." He is - again - responding to claims I never made.
By the way, there are people born with two heads, etc. These are called anomalies too; they are extremely rare.
Yes, they are statistical anomalies, because they are so extremely rare. This point is not helping his position, though, for the exact reasons I explained above. I did manage to compose a response to his points, though:
Please show me where your initial comment uses the phrase "both genders." It's late here and I might have missed it.

But, again, if you are going to equate sex and gender, then you still need to take care of point 4 that I explained to you initially.


That you don't want to actually address the weakness in your argument that is point 4, given your stated preference for your definition, is somewhat worrying, especially since it seems like you really do want to make a solid and valid science-based argument.

However, as I pointed out in my initial comment, your argument - as it was presented - was lacking in four specific areas. You have answered the first point, and you seem to be wanting to ignore the second point by calling it an anomaly. Of course, if you choose to call intersex an anomaly, it returns us back to the question of your definition, and whether you wish it to be universal in nature or exclusionary of anomalies. If the former (i.e., universal definition), then you must find a scientific way to include intersex while excluding transgender. If the latter (i.e., exclusionary definition), then you must find a scientific way to justify excluding intersex from the definition, but including transgender.

The same goes with point 3, and how you will choose to include or exclude them from your definition, and the scientific reasons for doing so.

I look forward to reading what you come up with.
Again, I was hoping - perhaps a faint hope - that this guy would be able to understand that - in all his off-base comments - he wasn't actually responding to things that I actually was talking about, even though he continuously thought that he was making responses to things that I was talking about. His response the next day is just too funny:
I can’t argue with you when you fail to read or comprehend what I have already posted. It is plain as day when I wrote of two genders, then fully explained why your criticism of that comment was wrong... I don’t know why any “scientist” (It’s nearly impossible for anyone to call them self a “scientist” - without a PhD - scientists nearly ALL have PhDs) and if you do have a PhD then how in the hell do you have time to argue this nonsense on FB with idiots like us? Look it up: nearly all “Scientists” need a PhD to live and eat. I seriously doubt you do...then that makes you a fibber or a bs’er (I suspect the latter hence your twisting language) if so, why bother arguing with you?
What's funny is not the part where he claims that I am almost certainly not a scientist. (Yes, that part is funny, too.) But what I found so funny is that he claims that he made a criticism of my comment. Unless he is redefining words, I didn't see any substantive criticism to any actual claim that I made. I saw plenty of retorts to claims that I never made, but to actual positions that I stated? Nothing. (Well, except for clarifying that he wants to say that sex and gender are the same.)

Then there's that strange point that he seems to be making that a scientist is the only one who can make scientific arguments. (I'm not 100% certain he is saying this, though, because his syntax is so muddled in that part of his comment.) But if he wants to make having a PhD in a scientific discipline the basis for making a scientific argument, then he cannot make a scientific argument, unless he has a PhD in a scientific discipline. I mean, if I'm the goose, then he's the gander.

Also, his desire to shift the argument from actual points of his definition to arguing about my attitude and making wild presumptions about whether I am a scientist is - unfortunately - the mark of a person who cannot figure out how to disengage from an argument he knows that he is losing: try to smear the person, and that will hopefully allow you to disengage from the argument, since it's not worth arguing against someone "bad."

It was clear that he wanted to finish, but it was clear that he wanted me to raise the white flag, and not him. So I decided to let him go, but with one final comment:
I have a PhD. From the University of Michigan. In ecology and natural resource management. So, I guess that makes me a scientist, as per your definition. Cheers? But since you brought it up, what are your qualifications for making scientific claims? Do you have a PhD in a science discipline?

As for this particular topic, I took physiology and brain development several years ago, but I also have been reading papers on the topic. Not enough to actually qualify as an expert in the field, but enough to know what's going on.

Next, to your point about me making definitions. I think you may have confused my conversation with you with someone else's points. I merely asked if you were equating sex and gender, not that they cannot be the same thing. I was then saying that - if you equate the two - then the scientific, biological implications of that action will require you to make certain adjustments to your definition, namely intersex individuals and individuals affected by androgens during fetal development. I then finished by pointing out the problem of citing 200,000+ years as your time reference, since - again, from a evolutionary biology starting point - that time frame explicitly limits the discussions to that of the evolution of modern humans, while the evolution of mammalian sexual reproduction extends far beyond your stated time frame. The science-based implication of setting such a limitation to your definition is that it would insufficiently cover the points you were trying to make, especially when you would need to incorporate individuals who are intersex and who developed under higher levels of androgens.

At no point did I say that your choice of definition was not scientific. And at no point did you actually write of two genders. Sure, you might have implied it, but definitions require the terms to be explicitly stated, or else people can infer whatever they want.

Also, I don't think I failed to understand the terms that you wrote. However, it seems that you have failed to either understand or much care about how the argument you wrote is not actually scientifically valid, given the shortcomings that I outlined. I come to this latter conclusion by your repeated statements that you refer to things that you never actually wrote, and that you infer intention and understanding on my part for things to which you don't actually have evidence, one way or another.

I will understand if you don't really wish to continue this particular conversation, even though I have been thoroughly tickled by your comments imposing motivations on me without evidence on your part. Still, if you wish to actually make a substantive response in the form of a restatement of your initial argument, which adequately takes into account the points made (by a scientist!) regarding the internal and external validity of the statement you made, I'd be happy to read it. If you prefer not to do so, though, I completely understand; scientific rigor isn't for everyone.

That was over 24 hours ago. Still no response from him.

Sunday, December 31, 2017

Why understanding context when asking a question is important

In a recent forum discussion, one person asked if Chile celebrated January 1 as a holiday. It seemed to many who responded to be a rather odd question, given the historical and cultural contexts. But then someone had to bring up the point that "well some countries don't observe a national holiday on January 1."

Yes, that's true, but there are a few things that are odd about the question, and even more infuriating about that "well some countries" response.

1. This is a question that is reliably google-able. From the Wikipedia page that comes up as the first result, we get.
Public Holidays in Chile:
January 1 New Year's Day Año Nuevo Blue laws forbid opening of most services.


Looking down the list for the first Chilean (e.g., *.cl) webpage, we find feriados.cl, which says:
Monday, January 1 New Year's Day
Inalienable
Secular
And what does "Inalienable" mean? If one does a little bit of googling (this time in Spanish), one finds that it means basically everything shuts down, except emergency services, hotels, gas stations, and family-run businesses. But even without that knowledge, a contextual assessment (plus a working knowledge of English) will inform you that New Year's Day is a pretty big holiday in Chile.

So yeah. That's easy to see.

2. The "not every country celebrates New Year's Day" is one of those facts that is true, but is useless when said out of context. What do I mean?

It is true that there are countries that don't celebrate some sort of holiday on 1 January. Strangely, a quick google search didn't pull up anything, so I ended up using the holiday information from https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/ to build a world map that showed the countries that do and don't have some sort of national observance on 1 January:

Basically, blue countries are those that celebrate New Year's Day on 1 January. (They might celebrate a cultural new year at some other time during the calendar year, but on 1 January, there is a celebration of an "international" New Year's Day.) Countries in yellow celebrate something in addition to - or in place of - New Year's Day.

The nine countries in red don't have any official celebrations listed for 1 January.

Note a few things:
i) All countries in South America celebrate 1 January as a holiday.
ii) All countries in the entire New World celebrate 1 January as a holidary.
iii) All countries that used to be part of the Spanish Empire celebrate 1 January as a holiday.
iv) Most of the countries that don't celebrate 1 January as a holiday are concentrated around one part of the globe.

So there is no nation in the geographic or cultural contexts in which Chile finds itself that don't celebrate 1 January as a holiday. In fact, since most countries in the entire world do celebrate 1 January as a holiday, saying "well some countries don't celebrate it" is true, but basically useless in most contexts.

In sum, we learned that Chile does have a national holiday on 1 January. The name of that national holiday - in English - is New Year's Day. And saying "well some countries don't have a holiday on 1 January" is true, but basically useless information in many contexts.

Happy New Year!

Thursday, September 07, 2017

Hurricane Irma, warm oceans, and expanding the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale

Back in 2011, I wrote about the current five-category hurricane system that the US uses (known as the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale), noting that the foundational logic of the scale was based on structural engineering questions:
a former NOAA hurricane center administrator and co-inventor of the SSHS that, "there is no reason for a Category 6 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale because it is designed to measure the potential damage of a hurricane to manmade structures. If the wind speed of the hurricane is above 155 mph (249 km/h), then the damage to a building will be 'serious no matter how well it's engineered'."
The current scale tops out at a "Category 5," which is any sustained wind speed above 155 mph. However, if one uses the threshold values for Categories 1 through 5 to develop a regression equation, it is possible to extend this relationship ever outward. Specifically, a revised category scale would be something like this:
Category 1: <95mph
Category 2: 96-110mph
Category 3: 111-130mph
Category 4: 131-150mph
Category 5: 151-175mph
Category 6: 176-205mph
Category 7: 206-235mph
Back in 2011, Hurricane Camille had sustained wind speeds of 175 mph, which is what prompted me to write that post. Currently, Hurricane Irma is reported as having sustained wind speeds of 185 mph, making it the strongest Atlantic hurricane in recorded history. However, based on the current hurricane scale, both Camille and Irma are classified as Category 5, even though Irma is obviously far stronger than Camille (which was - itself - a massive hurricane).

Indeed, the current system is fundamentally limited and fundamentally limiting, since one loses any sense of comparative scale once you enter "Category 5." And what would it hurt to look at adding a "Category 6," especially if warming waters are known to lead to stronger and more sustained hurricanes? Indeed, with warming oceans, hurricanes that will reach sustained wind speeds between 175 and 205 mph will not be theoretical. Indeed, Hurricane Irma is proof-positive that such hurricanes can and will form.

But so what? Why would that matter?

Well, in the US, the SSHS is a widely known and used shorthand for hurricane strength. It's something that people latch on to when discussing preparedness measures and when making comparisons against past events. But if the maximum scale is effectively open-ended, the designation "Category 5" will be shared by a hurricane with wind speeds of 155 mph and another with winds speeds of 185 mph (like Hurricane Irma). And the simple fact is that wind speeds of 185 mph are fundamentally different than wind speeds of 155 mph, and placing both in the same open-ended category will not help with making short-hand comparisons that would be equivalent to comparing a Category 4 hurricane against a Category 3 hurricane.

The way we categorize natural phenomena is important, since it structures the way that we view and respond to the world, and if we continue to use a hurricane classification system whose comparative utility declines into a future that is expected to have stronger hurricanes, that can impact the type of public response given to future storms.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Some things to consider when thinking about political trends

I don't write so much these days on this blog, but that doesn't mean that I've stopped thinking about some of the themes that I have written about in the past. Today, I want to write a little about US national politics and trends. Specifically, I want to write a little about the US Presidential elections, and what it means for Democrats.

This urge was spurred on by an article I read at Vox ("What right-wing populism?"). Okay, the author makes some shortcuts by basically equating liberals with progressives and those with Democrats, but given the dominant duality of the US political system, that short-hand has become so commonplace that it is effectively taken as synonymous in many corners. However, he makes some good data-backed rhetorical points about the public wanting government spending even as they might say that they don't want government spending.

But this got me thinking about the "Trump Revolution" (of 2016) and the earlier "Reagan Revolution" (that happened in 1980). In both cases, the narrative was that working class/blue-collar voters moved from the Democrats to the Republicans. But in 2016, that story never rang true for me. After all, Hillary won the popular vote (and - indeed - the polls predicted the popular win quite accurately). And the increase in Republican votes between 2012 and 2016 was basically a rise of 2 million, but less than 1 million when Bush ran to his first popular vote victory in 2004. But - because the US population was lower in 2004 than 2016, this "less than 1 million than Bush in 2004" figure means that Bush actually won a greater percentage of the vote (29.06% of all voting-age Americans) than Trump (26.74% of all voting-age Americans). But let me unpack that a little bit, because those numbers seem too small.

What I wanted to do was to create an assessment of how many voting-age Americans did each party's candidate win in each POTUS election? Now, in every year, not all people vote (indeed, the average voter turnout for a POTUS election since 1940 is 56.3%). Therefore, if there is a year where the voter turnout is only 50% (like 1988), then a victory of 53.4% (which George H.W. Bush got) means that only 27.6% of voting-age Americans actually cast a vote for Papa Bush. Indeed, counted this way, most POTUS victories since 1940 were won with less than 1/3 of all voting-age Americans actually casting a ballot for the victor, save for four Presidents: FDR (1940, 34.4%), Ike (1952, 35.1%; 1956 35.0%), JFK (1964, 37.97%), and Tricky Dick (1972, 34.11%).

Okay, so what, though?

Well, if there was a major shift from Democrats to Republicans in 1980 with Reagan and 2016 with Trump, then there should have been a major shift in the share of voting-age Americans that the Republicans won in those years, and a consonant decline in Democrats compared to each previous election. With Reagan, we do see this:

Republicans: 26.24% (1976)     27.14% (1980)     +0.9%
Democrats: 27.36% (1976)     21.93% (1980)     -5.43%

But with Trump? Not so much:

Republicans: 26.37% (2012)     26.74% (2016)     +0.37%
Democrats: 28.53% (2012)     27.96% (2016)     -0.57%

So what's going on? Basically, the Republicans did gain more votes since the previous election, but 2016 was nothing like 1980. The change in Democratic vote-share in 2016 was nowhere near the enormous shift seen in 1980 moving away from Carter. And we see this in shifts in the popular vote from 2012:

Republicans: +2,050,000 votes compared to 2012
Democrats: -60,000 votes compared to 2012.

But, given the simple fact that Trump's share of voting-age Americans (26.74%) is basically the same as the average GOP vote-share since 2000 (26.78%) means that the power of Trump/Pence in the elections was not really any different from Bush/Cheney, McCain/Palin, or Romney/Ryan.

The only real difference is on the Democrats' side.

So 2016 isn't so much a story of conservative or right-wing America surging, but rather a story of liberal or left-wing American choosing to stay home. This, together with the Vox article, strongly suggest that - if liberal/progressive/Democratic Americans actually got out to vote - then there would be a dramatic across-the-board shift. Luckily for conservatives, the percentage of liberals/progressives who go and vote is lower than the percentage of voting conservatives.

(Note: All numbers are drawn from a simple set of calculations using voting statistics drawn from Wikipedia pages on presidential elections between 1940 and 2016.)

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

What is the translation of the Chilean "Región" into English?

One of my pet peeve annoyances of living in Chile is related to the unique way in which the administrative areas are designated, and how such designations get mistranslated into meaninglessness (or confusion). For reference purposes, the largest sub-national administrative zone is called "Región." Now, many people might want to translate this into the English "Region," but this would be like translating the now-commonly understood usage of "state" into "nation" (which - after all - used to mean effectively the same thing).

Recently, I was reviewing a paper written about sampling that took place in the waters inside and outside the Strait of Magellan. Now, for context, the Strait of Magellan and the waters nearby are located in the Chilean sub-national administrative area called Región de Magallanes y de la Antartica de Chile (known more commonly as simply "Región de Magallanes"). The annoying thing came about when the the author made reference to both the Strait of Magellan and "the coastal zone of the western Magellan region."

Okay, if you didn't just read through the above descriptions of what is meant by "Región" in Chile, I would bet that "the coastal zone of the western Magellan region" - in the context of sampling that took included areas in and around the Strait of Magellan - would easily be confused to mean "the coastal zones west of the area around the Strait of Magellan" instead of the intended meaning of "the coastal zones in the western area of the administrative area known in Chile as 'Región de Magallanes' (which is far larger in geographic scope than just the area in and around the Strait of Magellan)."

It's always difficult to determine whether some proper name should be translated or not. The name "Puerto de San Antonio" is often translated into "Port of San Antonio," but it isn't translated into "Port of Saint Anthony," even though "Saint Anthony" is the translation of "San Antonio." Similarly, the Cerro San Cristóbal (located in Santiago) is translated into "San Cristobal Hill," but not into "Saint Christopher Hill," even though "Saint Christopher" is the translation of "San Cristóbal." Based on these example, though, it seems a reasonable assessment that place names that include man-made or natural physical features (like ports or hills) have the physical feature translated into English, but the rest of the name remains in the original language. In that way, "Río Claro" is translated into "River Claro" or "Claro River" (but not "Clear River") and "Bahía Inútil" is translated into "Inutil Bay" (but not "Useless Bay").

But I would argue that cases where designations are effectively false-cognates (like "Región" and "Comuna"), translating them into English should not be done - no matter what Wikipedia says. This is because the term "Region" holds absolutely no implicit governmental significance in English, and "Commune" (the most common translation of "comuna") has a long historical use in English that is completely foreign to the way it is understood in Chile. Therefore, all fifteen Chilean "Regiones" should be presented as "Region de ___" like "Region de Magallanes."

Similarly, all the 346 Chilean comunas should either be presented as "Comuna de ___" like "Comuna de Aisen" in places where different administrative levels share the same name (e.g., Region de Aisen, Provincia de Aisen, Comuna de Aisen) or simply the name places where the comuna name is distinct from any other administrative level (e.g., "Providencia"). Or just refer to that whole administrative level as "Municipality."

All of this is because leaving the name untranslated immediately signals to the reader that this is a name of a specific place, whereas translating the name to “Magellan region” or "the Lakes region" or "the Rivers region" could easily be misinterpreted to mean “the zone around the Strait of Magellan,” "the zone with lakes," and "the zone with rivers," respectively. 

Of course, there are no firm rules for using place names in English. However, it is often far more useful for English-language readers if place names do not have their meanings translated into English. 


Now, Chile also has Roman Numeral designations for all the administrative Regions (I through XV). And I have seen people try to use these designations in their article drafts. But I would merely point out that using the Roman Numeral designations will likely mean absolutely nothing to readers who have no experience with Chilean political geography. The designations also run afoul of the very distinct uses of Roman Numerals in much of the English speaking world compared to how they are used in the Spanish speaking world generally (and Chile specifically).

So, in conclusion, in the case of Región: 
  1. don't translate the term "Región" into "region."
    • In general usage, refer to "administrative Regions"
    • In specific usage, refer to "Region de ___."
  2. don't use the Roman Numeral designation for the administrative Regions. 
  3. don't use accents
And in the case of Comuna:
  1. don't translate the term "Comuna" into "commune
    • In general usage, refer to either "administrative Comunas" or "municipalities"
    • In specific usage, refer to either "Comuna de ___" or "Municipality of ___."