this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
454 points (91.9% liked)
Technology
86879 readers
4062 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Him being a cis het white guy is not relevant here apart from general privileges that come with that. Unless you are saying that one with those attributes should automatically be disregarded or disqualified from public participation, or treated as lesser in matters of science, history, current events, etc. That is not a stance I can support. Equality means equality for all. That does mean that privilege should be recognized and often worked against in the name of equity. But cis het white men can still have a seat at the table of public discourse just like everyone else.
If you have a problem with Hank, the things he says or has said, that is fine. Criticism of ideas is great and necessary. Criticizing the societal privilege that he possesses for some inherent traits or his fame and money is also great and necessary too. But reducing an individual to some set of inherent traits outside of their control and criticizing those traits instead of their words and actions is just prejudice.
Edit: Also, I'm interested in what he said about trans people and HRT that you found objectionable. Same for the misogyny. Can you share a bit about that? And maybe a link to the relevant videos? I personally haven't seen him speak about trans issues in any real detail. And everything that I have seen him say in regards to women and trans people has been generally positive. I'm curious what I may have missed.
He made a video describing hrt and saying it was safer to take testosterone blockers without taking estrogen for mtf trans adults. Which is established in medical science as a sure way to get osteoporosis.
He also claimed that knitting is a female hobby of old grandmas that had no impact in technological development of civilization. Both videos caused an online uproar and have since been delisted.
My criticism is not about who he is. But the general social conditions, like race, gender and orientation privileges that allow him to speak with authority without being put into question by the vast majority since his status is socially determined to be the default. This makes him particularly dangerous when he speaks of things he knows nothing of, or was just lectured about by an LLM, as if he is the level headed rational voice. When, more often than not, he isn't. It is when he gets burned that he starts really avoiding topics, which is commendable at least. This is why he carefully avoids touching Palestine-Israel when talking about geopolitics (while also generally supporting a pro US neoliberal stance) or avoids talking about trans people anymore. He did a video on weaving and semi tried to apologize for the knitting thing, but unsuccessfully, since he glorified weaving as a male world of tech advancement unlike knitting.
Regarding the knitting thing, I'll take your word that he once said something to that nature (I never saw that one, so IDK) but just a few months ago he went on a deep dive into textiles and did interviews with subject matter experts about their deep importance to history, technology, and modern life. I thought it was very cool and insightful.
It sounds to me like he made a mistake, assumed he knew more than he did, got and (more importantly) was receptive to the critical feedback from his audience, and decided to dedicate time to correcting his misunderstanding. I'm inclined to give grace to someone for that.
Again, I didn't see the comments on HRT either, and I don't much about know the specific studies regarding health outcomes with different regimens. I will take your word for it on both. I will go so far as to say that he shouldn't speak on specifics regarding health that he is only passingly familiar with, and that is on him. But, I don't think that what you described was, in any way, critical of trans people. And a mistaken opinion based on limited knowledge in an area you do not claim to be an expert in is not really all that unforgivable, especially when you voluntarily take that misinformation down to prevent further spread once you've been corrected. Plenty of people have plenty of opinions about things they don't fully understand, and you don't always know what you don't know. From what I have seen of him, I would hope that he later highlighted his mistake and corrected it, along with removing the video. I don't know that he did, but I have seen him do similar before. I really can't expect that much else from a YouTuber.
I don't think his cis het white male status is what gives him an air of authority on the matter. For one thing, not that it matters, but he has made clear that he is not hetero, but bi, even though he is married to a woman. But regardless, if his authority comes from anywhere, it is that he has spent decades in various forms of science education, provides these resources for free as a non-profit, and loves to do and share research into a wide variety of topics, and do interviews with experts in niche fields to spread knowledge. He has experience and proven dedication to science education. There is nothing about that that has to do with his race, orientation, sex, or gender identity. In fact, the science education channel he created and co-hosts, Scishow, also has several other hosts that are of various races, genders, orientations, etc. He is using his privilege to platform other groups in the science space, actively pushing against the default status you are concerned about.
Again, you are absolutely free to feel however you feel about him, and criticize his ideas, his mistakes, the risky overconfidence you perceive, etc. I agree wholeheartedly that speaking on health issues regarding trans health in particular without a firm expertise or expert source at minimum is a bad idea, and it is potentially grossly negligent to give health advice in that or any area you do not fully understand when you have the kind of platform and perceived authority he does. But I do think that he is of good character, does actively try to help, and willingly admits and corrects his mistakes to the best of his abilities. And so I really can't agree that he is overall a bad guy or source of science education/discourse.
It sounds like your main gripe would be that he speaks before he had certainty, and his platform thus lends credence to his words, right or wrong. That is a very fair critique. We also need to remember that he is a flawed human being like the rest of us, and with a curious mind, loves to learn and share what he has learned. If you put no more stock into his words than that, as one should, then he is harmless. He should be mindful that he's going to be treated with more trust than most and should honor that trust with as much credibility as possible. But also no one is perfect.
I never said so much. I said he has a problem with speaking confidently without double checking himself because of the typical attitude that is socially taught to white cishet men. Which the whole AI thing has clearly highlighted. Again, I don't dislike him as a person, I don't think he is bad, I don't think anyone is purely good or bad. But I think that, though commendable to use his privilege and status to platform diversity, also requires a modicum of caution before speaking. Science communications is one of, if not the hardest, topics of communication because of the great potential for harm if misinformation is given authority. Apologizing and changing to do better is fine, but when it happens over and over, it starts to highlight a pattern of carelessness and lack of impulse control. Science communication requires due diligence and deep nuance. On the contrary, he seems to have been aiming for a neck breaking pace of content creation, accelerating more and more as of late. When you rush, you make more mistakes, you risk doing harm.
If you want to know more, here's a video from someone from the knitting community that articulates my gripes with the Green's brand of slop better than I can in the limited space of a Lemmy comment.
Here there's a commentary about the whole HRT misinformation problem. I had also forgotten the whole «it's misogynistic for trans women to claim they experience mood swings», it's so erasing of personal experiences of all trans persons in general. Anyways, my point is that the Green's are lousy science communicators, and I do think that race, gender and sexual orientation play at least a small part in that. They're far from the first science channel to fall for that trap.