Is transgender a disease?

I passed out at 10. Fuckin getting old.

Rocinante wrote:I passed out at 10. Fuckin getting old.

I wasn't too far behind you.

I'm on meds, though. That's my excuse (for now).

I am drunk again. I may have a problem.

Rocinante wrote:I am drunk again. I may have a problem.

Why? There will always be plenty of liquor. I don't see it as a problem.

Thanks wags. You're right. There's plenty of liquor in the world

Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder not unlike many other personality disorders, with the critical characteristic being intense emotional and physical distress caused by the mismatch in perceived vs biological gender/sex identity.

Gender Dysphoria is not the same as gender non-conformity. When someone experiences intense stress, anxiety and depression due to their perceived gender/sex identity, sometimes to the extent that they are willing to surgically alter their sex organs to their perceived gender, that is clearly a mental disorder. I really don't see how it could be scientifically argued that it's not a disorder.

With that said, I would not openly discuss someone's mental disorder with them in the context of "something is wrong with you" because it's rude. I also don't care what bathrooms they use, what name or pronoun they'd like to be called etc. It's no hair off my back to refer to them as their perceived gender if it helps mitigate their social anxiety and depression symptoms.

As stated before. When we operate within the language of the binary gender identity, society creates the "disorder." We have to move outside the box. Transgendered or gender fluid people are not sick, in general. Societal inability to recognize the gender spectrum as truth is the biggest problem.

I've mentioned before about this girl I knew in high school. She comes out in college. That's cool. We all kinda suspected. Then years later, after college she wants to have a sex change operation. She, becomes a he. I saw (now a) him a few years ago. Had some stubble going and a pretty deep voice. It took a minute to figure out who he was. Turns out after the sex change operation he is into dudes now. I haven't heard too many stories like that.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:I've mentioned before about this girl I knew in high school. She comes out in college. That's cool. We all kinda suspected. Then years later, after college she wants to have a sex change operation. She, becomes a he. I saw (now a) him a few years ago. Had some stubble going and a pretty deep voice. It took a minute to figure out who he was. Turns out after the sex change operation he is into dudes now. I haven't heard too many stories like that.

I know quite a few trans folk. the ones that are post-transition, nobody can tell. It is what is it and people need to live and let live.

Rocinante wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:I've mentioned before about this girl I knew in high school. She comes out in college. That's cool. We all kinda suspected. Then years later, after college she wants to have a sex change operation. She, becomes a he. I saw (now a) him a few years ago. Had some stubble going and a pretty deep voice. It took a minute to figure out who he was. Turns out after the sex change operation he is into dudes now. I haven't heard too many stories like that.

I know quite a few trans folk.  the ones that are post-transition, nobody can tell.  It is what is it and people need to live and let live.

I'm not talking just trans. I'm talking about changing what you're sexually attracted to after the surgery/hormone therapy. Is that a common thing?

Rocinante wrote:As stated before.  When we operate within the language of the binary gender identity, society creates the "disorder."  We have to move outside the box.  Transgendered or gender fluid people are not sick, in general.  Societal inability to recognize the gender spectrum as truth is the biggest problem.

Is the gender spectrum really the truth, though? What percentage of the population is outside the binary? Some cursory googling indicates that it's very very small. This source says that in the UK it's 0.4%. So because 0.4% don't fit into the traditional binary genders, that means binary is a lie? Occam's razor would seem to suggest to me that those 0.4% are the exceptions that prove the rule.
This article indicates that we don't have reliable data for the US, but estimates seem to be in the 0.1-0.5% range.

Rocinante wrote:As stated before. When we operate within the language of the binary gender identity, society creates the "disorder." We have to move outside the box. Transgendered or gender fluid people are not sick, in general. Societal inability to recognize the gender spectrum as truth is the biggest problem.

What? I'm referring to their biology which has absolutely nothing to do with their gender identity. If you're born biologically male, and you feel so strongly that you were supposed to be a female that it causes you mental and physical stress, anxiety and depression, that is a textbook mental disorder. Psychologists even differentiate between Gender Dysphoria/Gender Identity Disorder and Gender Non-Conformity (which is not a mental disorder) due to the mental and physiological symptoms that people with Gender Dysphoria experience.

It's not like having a personality/identity disorder makes you subhuman, but I do not think we should normalize transgender hormone therapy or surgical alteration as anything other than a medical treatment to reduce symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Rocinante wrote:As stated before. When we operate within the language of the binary gender identity, society creates the "disorder." We have to move outside the box. Transgendered or gender fluid people are not sick, in general. Societal inability to recognize the gender spectrum as truth is the biggest problem.

What? I'm referring to their biology which has absolutely nothing to do with their gender identity. If you're born biologically male, and you feel so strongly that you were supposed to be a female that it causes you mental and physical stress, anxiety and depression, that is a textbook mental disorder. Psychologists even differentiate between Gender Dysphoria/Gender Identity Disorder and Gender Non-Conformity (which is not a mental disorder) due to the mental and physiological symptoms that people with Gender Dysphoria experience.

It's not like having a personality/identity disorder makes you subhuman, but I do not think we should normalize transgender hormone therapy or surgical alteration as anything other than a medical treatment to reduce symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression.

To answer you and Cameron: I would argue that EVERYONE is on gender spectrum. like any bell curve, we tend to notice those on the fringes because they stand out to those of us who more closely appear to agree with the binary construct, but if we really ask the question "what is gender" we come up with a variety of answers. Is it being attracted to the opposite biological sex that makes us a gender? Is it appearance? Are we conflating the term gender with sex? If we begin to accept that gender is a spectrum, we begin to understand that on the extremes of that spectrum are individuals who's gender is such that their biological sex doesn't agree with it. It's not "common" in statistical terms, but that doesn't mean it's a sickness.

As an example, homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder as well, much of the evidence behind that claim had to do with what was called compulsion: The hidden lives of people who practiced homosexuality. How many of them were "normal folks" during the day, but sneaked out at night to fulfill their compulsions and risked upsetting their "normal" lives with risk-taking behaviors. It turns out that much of the evidence cited for homosexuality as a mental disorder was actually related to social constructs of gender. "Men act like this, women act like this, sissy, light in the loafers, a real bull dike." etc. We now understand that homosexuality is part of the normal spectrum of sexuality. Gender is the same, and the two are intertwined.

If you stop trying to define people based on some preconceived notion of "normal" it all makes perfect sense.

Here's an article that sums up my feelings on the matter. I think it's balanced and nuanced.

the last third of it is talking about dysphoria in various populations, which I think X, Cam, and Anomander can appreciate. But the take home, I think is that gender is a spectrum, and it's possible that the desire to surgically change themselves might abate if there was a societal acceptance of expressing your gender.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/richard-a-friedman-how-changeable-is-gender.html

Doesn't the B in LGBT indicate binary?

(My humor, like gender, is on a spectrum... so this is somewhat serious, somewhat joking.... my humor indentifies as non-conforming, pan-comedic, humor-fluid comedy)

In all seriousness, I've always seen it as a spectrum, too. But I've seen it as two spectrums. Male spectrum, and female spectrum. You are what you biologically are, not much you can do about nature. However, within those two spectrums you can be straight up gay that thinks straight sex is disgusting, or straight up straight (yes) that thinks homosexuality is disgusting and then obviously anything in between. P.s., Those are the extremes of both sides... I would hope most people wouldn't find heterosexuals or homosexuals disgusting but both of those extremes do exist, unfortunately.

At least this is how my conversations have gone with gay friends. They seem to agree with it and they themselves shaped that opinion of observance.

I guess I could see it as one big spectrum but there's going to be a point at which a woman can't go much further into the male end of the spectrum just based purely on nature.

I'm also really high right now and about 30mg of hydrocodone in, so this is interesting me much more than normal right now.

Rocinante wrote:Here's an article that sums up my feelings on the matter.  I think it's balanced and nuanced.

the last third of it is talking about dysphoria in various populations, which I think X, Cam, and Anomander can appreciate.  But the take home, I think is that gender is a spectrum, and it's possible that the desire to surgically change themselves might abate if there was a societal acceptance of expressing your gender.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/richard-a-friedman-how-changeable-is-gender.html

That article was excellent, thanks for sharing.

I think it's probably the case that the 0.4% ish numbers that I mentioned in my previous post are under-representations of people who don't feel that they fit into the binary genders. I still am not convinced that being gender non binary is a significant portion of the population, but I don't have a good way of determining the true number. I think whatever spectrum exists is probably sort of the opposite of the political spectrum or a bell curve. In a standard bell curve, most people are in the middle, and I think the same is true of the political spectrum (most people are moderates). I would imagine that the gender spectrum would have most people at one end or the other, with very few people (the outliers) in the middle. An upside down bell curve, if you will.

I need to reflect on this more to figure out what I really think, but I am inclined to stop pushing back against the notion of a spectrum (but I may persist in pointing out the relative proportions of people who populate a given part of the spectrum, because I do think that is relevant information).

------------------

What Dr. Kranz found was intriguing: In several brain regions, people born female with a female gender identity had the highest level of something called mean diffusivity, followed by female-to-male transsexuals. Next came male-to-female transsexuals, and then the males with a male gender identity, who had the lowest levels.

In a sense, this indicates that the brains of female-to-male transsexuals are still more female than are the brains of male-to-female transsexuals, and vice versa. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from that (very likely none), I just think it's interesting, and it would seem to contradict some of the hardline transgender rhetoric that one occasionally hears (specifically, that there is no difference between a transgender woman and a cisgender woman, that sort of thing).

-----------------

But if anything marks what a child really is, it is experimentation and flux. Why, then, would one subject a child to hormones and gender reassignment if there is a high likelihood that the gender dysphoria will resolve?

With adolescents, the story is very different: About three quarters of gender dysphoric teens may be “persisters,” which makes decisions about gender reassignment at this age more secure.

I think this is an important bit of information (and new to me). I feel pretty strongly that beginning gender reassignment in prepubescent children is bad, based on this information. I don't mean changing names and pronouns, that's probably not likely to do lasting damage, but hormone replacement or surgery, that's what I'm talking about.

-----------------
The last two paragraphs:

Given the absence of good treatment-outcome data, how can anyone — whether transgender activist, parent or clinician — be sure of the best course of action?

There is obviously a huge gap between rapidly shifting cultural attitudes about gender identity and our scientific understanding of them. Until we have better data, what’s wrong with a little skepticism? After all, medical and psychological treatments should be driven by the best available scientific evidence — not political pressure or cherished beliefs.

Sort of reinforce the end of my first post in this thread:

My (somewhat provisional) position is that science has yet to fully understand all the biochemical mechanisms at work here, and there is not yet any one size fits all determination about what the right course of action may be. It sounds somewhat insensitive (at least to my ear) to say that trans people need to be further studied, but, frankly, I think that's the truth.

Just thought I'd take an opportunity to pat myself on the back a little bit.

Glad we could come to somewhat of an understanding Cam.

Roc I'm totally with you on gender identity being a spectrum just like sexual orientation, we do not and have not at any point disagreed there but the article you posted was a good read either way.

What I am suggesting is that there is clearly a difference between individuals with gender identity misalignment relative to social constructions, and sex misalignment relative to biological assignment vs the perceived self. The experience of anxiety, depression, and suicidal tendencies caused by the misalignment are what make it a disorder. It's not necessarily related to society or gender roles either, they look in the mirror and are mentally impacted because their perceived sense of self does not match their physical body.

Identifying individuals with a disorder doesn't mean there is something wrong with them or they're not normal. Mental disorders are actually completely "normal" and common. How many people do you know that have bi-polar disorder, or borderline personality disorder, schziophrenia etc? All of these disorders are actually somewhat common, some even more common than Gender Dysphoria so to suggest there's something "wrong" with individuals affected by Gender Dysphoria is insulting to those groups as well and that's not what I am saying. It's part of the human experience, we're not perfect. We have genetic differences that manifest in our brains in different ways and that is perfectly ok. That's why we study the brain and have psychologists and psychiatrists to help people deal with their symptoms.

Some of the greatest minds in human history technically had some sort mental disorder that manifested in a way that granted them incredible abilities. Disorders do not make someone dysfunctional or invalid in any way, it's just a way for Psychologists to categorize various human conditions and scientifically describe and study their condition.

I understand Anoman, and my response is, as noted in the article, it's possible that the suicidal tendencies of certain populations are related to societal constructs of gender. Like I pointed out previously, when homosexuality was considered a mental illness, part of the justifications were behaviors that were caused by societal constructs of normality. It's possible, if gender fluidity were not so openly derided, the "illness" would go away in many people. I think we understand each other.

Rocinante wrote:I understand Anoman, and my response is, as noted in the article, it's possible that the suicidal tendencies of certain populations are related to societal constructs of gender. Like I pointed out previously, when homosexuality was considered a mental illness, part of the justifications were behaviors that were caused by societal constructs of normality. It's possible, if gender fluidity were not so openly derided, the "illness" would go away in many people. I think we understand each other.

Word up Roc. I agree that society being more accepting of transgenders would mitigate the symptoms they experience as well.

Look at that assholes we can all get along after all.

Fuck that shit. There's 2 genders or we're taking this outside.

I love this thread now.

Cameron wrote:I need to reflect on this more to figure out what I really think, but I am inclined to stop pushing back against the notion of a spectrum (but I may persist in pointing out the relative proportions of people who populate a given part of the spectrum, because I do think that is relevant information).

Bumping this thread because there's not enough discord on tBin right now.

So I've been turning this over in my mind, and I'm still not sure I've reached any conclusions, but I have some thoughts.

I struggle to accept the notion that gender is a wholly social construct. Perhaps this just comes down to how one defines "gender." But to me, it is no coincidence that there are two biological sexes and a "gender" that corresponds to each. If one asserts that gender is a social construct and essentially meaningless, then what is the utility in creating a BUNCH of genders? Why not just do away with the concept entirely and stick to biological sex?

In this clip of Joe Rogan talking with Thaddeus Russell, they touch on the social construct stuff. They also talk about how different a man like Andy Dick is from an MMA fighter. Russell seems to assert that because two such "men" are so different, the category of "man" is somehow meaningless/not useful. To me, this just seems like people like Russell want to get a full(er) picture of a person based on a single label. That strikes me as rather small-minded.. If you want to get a sense of what a person is like, you generally have to get to know them. No matter what pronoun they prefer or what gender they identify as, there is not a whole lot you can reliably infer from that information about what that person is really like. At one point, Russell asked Rogan "are there any two females that are identical?" The tone of his voice and the look on his face made it seem as though he thought this was a good question and it's answer would prove his point. I don't see that it does.

If the argument is that gender stereotypes and traditional gender roles are harmful, you'll find very little disagreement from me. But that doesn't seem like a sufficient reason to blow the whole thing up. It would be simpler to try to lessen the prevalence/impact of such stereotypes than it will be to get every man, woman, and child to internalize dozens of pronouns, most of which refer to people whom they will never meet. I would also point out that gender stereotypes/roles are not baseless. For example, I think it is rather indisputable that women in general are more nurturing than men and gravitate to roles that reflect that. Where people go wrong is in assuming that a given individual will fit the stereotype, or that there is something wrong with an individual who does not fit the stereotype.

I also have a dickish and somewhat disingenuous question (or series of questions) that I still can't help but ask. People often assert that we need new singular pronouns that are gender neutral. We have one already: "it." Why can't we use that? I think I know why, because "it" is offensive. But why is it offensive? Because it's dehumanizing? Why is it dehumanizing? Because it is gender neutral?

Lastly, Rogan and Russell seemed to find the most common ground when they stopped talking theoretically and started talking practically. Rogan said he doesn't want to stand in the way of anyone doing what they want in terms of self-identity, sexual proclivities, and so on. That's where the rubber meets the road, as I see it. The problems facing trans people don't come from people who don't understand them and can't keep up with their language games, but wish them no ill will. The problems come from people who try to control how trans people (or anyone, really) live their lives when it doesn't affect anyone else. I think those problems would be better served by finding allies than by making enemies, and I think a lot of the "trans activist" rhetoric (for lack of a better term) makes more enemies than it creates allies. You can't shame people into being more accepting, you have to educate them (critically, educate them, not tell them to *ahem* educate themselves). The antidote to ignorance is knowledge.

Cameron wrote:

Cameron wrote:I need to reflect on this more to figure out what I really think, but I am inclined to stop pushing back against the notion of a spectrum (but I may persist in pointing out the relative proportions of people who populate a given part of the spectrum, because I do think that is relevant information).

Bumping this thread because there's not enough discord on tBin right now.

So I've been turning this over in my mind, and I'm still not sure I've reached any conclusions, but I have some thoughts.

I struggle to accept the notion that gender is a wholly social construct. Perhaps this just comes down to how one defines "gender." But to me, it is no coincidence that there are two biological sexes and a "gender" that corresponds to each. If one asserts that gender is a social construct and essentially meaningless, then what is the utility in creating a BUNCH of genders? Why not just do away with the concept entirely and stick to biological sex?

In this clip of Joe Rogan talking with Thaddeus Russell, they touch on the social construct stuff. They also talk about how different a man like Andy Dick is from an MMA fighter. Russell seems to assert that because two such "men" are so different, the category of "man" is somehow meaningless/not useful. To me, this just seems like people like Russell want to get a full(er) picture of a person based on a single label. That strikes me as rather small-minded.. If you want to get a sense of what a person is like, you generally have to get to know them. No matter what pronoun they prefer or what gender they identify as, there is not a whole lot you can reliably infer from that information about what that person is really like. At one point, Russell asked Rogan "are there any two females that are identical?" The tone of his voice and the look on his face made it seem as though he thought this was a good question and it's answer would prove his point. I don't see that it does.

If the argument is that gender stereotypes and traditional gender roles are harmful, you'll find very little disagreement from me. But that doesn't seem like a sufficient reason to blow the whole thing up. It would be simpler to try to lessen the prevalence/impact of such stereotypes than it will be to get every man, woman, and child to internalize dozens of pronouns, most of which refer to people whom they will never meet. I would also point out that gender stereotypes/roles are not baseless. For example, I think it is rather indisputable that women in general are more nurturing than men and gravitate to roles that reflect that. Where people go wrong is in assuming that a given individual will fit the stereotype, or that there is something wrong with an individual who does not fit the stereotype.

I also have a dickish and somewhat disingenuous question (or series of questions) that I still can't help but ask. People often assert that we need new singular pronouns that are gender neutral. We have one already: "it." Why can't we use that? I think I know why, because "it" is offensive. But why is it offensive? Because it's dehumanizing? Why is it dehumanizing? Because it is gender neutral?

Lastly, Rogan and Russell seemed to find the most common ground when they stopped talking theoretically and started talking practically. Rogan said he doesn't want to stand in the way of anyone doing what they want in terms of self-identity, sexual proclivities, and so on. That's where the rubber meets the road, as I see it. The problems facing trans people don't come from people who don't understand them and can't keep up with their language games, but wish them no ill will. The problems come from people who try to control how trans people (or anyone, really) live their lives when it doesn't affect anyone else. I think those problems would be better served by finding allies than by making enemies, and I think a lot of the "trans activist" rhetoric (for lack of a better term) makes more enemies than it creates allies. You can't shame people into being more accepting, you have to educate them (critically, educate them, not tell them to *ahem* educate themselves). The antidote to ignorance is knowledge.

I'll join ya in the sandbox if you don't mind, Cam.

Sex and gender have always been synonymous. The etymology from Latin to Middle English confirms this. Without the medical technology from the last 30-40 years this would never have been a discussion. It can't be a social construct without the last few decade's science.

There's been a huge push in post modernism to alter and then change the definitions of words. Normally this isn't much of an issue as words often meaning over time. However, what we see in post modernism is a push for rapid change of definition.
What I'm most interested in is.... why? When I look at what sort of language is attempted to be changed they most often fall into a very specific type of category where the intent becomes clear.

Did you happen to see the Tucker Carlson clip where he asks BAMN organizer Yvette Felarca, "what is a fascist?", she then goes on to give a very specific definition that zeros in on exactly who her organization is targeting for violence. Her intentions are clear. And this is what is happening with definitions that used to be based in etymology. I do believe etymologists will look back in 300 years and without the benefit of our technology to record everything would wonder how the word changed definitions with a couple of decades...

The word 'racism' has its etymological roots in French and since its inception has meant "the belief that a race is inferior to another". So why is there this huge cultural push since the 90s that has ramped up in the last 5-10 years to zero the definition down to "a race in position of power that believes other races are inferior to their own"? The intent seems clear to me... and there isn't a transition. One day we woke up and MTV is teaching kids through "hey white people, stop being pieces of shit" PSAs.

You watch Bill Nye now vs Bill Nye in the 90s when he talks about gender. The episode in the 90s, while dumbed down for it audience of children, explains the chromosomes and DNA and how that manifests itself into genitalia and reproduction. Now his story has changed. Okay, no biggie, whatcha got Billy... and he brings out someone trying to be funny whose message only boils down to "I can be whatever I want to be based on how I'm feeling at the moment", the music stops and he proclaims "the science is settled" without having introduced anything that could be considered scientific into the conversation.

Referring to someone as 'zhe' isn't the problem and this is what started this road for Peterson. His university is instituting rules that indicate he is required to play along with whatever gender theory pronoun someone confronts him with or risk his tenure. But he's in the science field. How does someone who looks at things through the prism of the scientific method supposed to square this movement who becomes volatile when your language doesn't fit within their spiraling narrow definitions?

My problem with the movement is the attitude behind it. It's a movement attempting to create a science out of something not based in science. The aim is not science or logic, the aim is to make people feel better. So gender has always been synonymous with sex. Gender was never a "social construct" until post modernism came along and proclaimed it was. And anyone who says otherwise is a bigot. And what do we do with bigots? Ask Yvette Felarca and the Berkeley professors what we do.... and the slipper slope rages on.

I watched the first podcast with Thaddeus and appreciated his insight on the standard practice of being anti-male on university campus. The college he taught at at the time had an incident where two 19 year olds, a boy and a girl, were both drunk and texting each other about getting together to have some good ol fashion sex. In the text she told him to bring a condom and to come over. They both have their drunken fun and the next day she withdraws consent (over 12 hours after the incident). This is in California, where long held definitions are cut up and edited like the script to the latest reality tv show, as we've been discussing. Apparently in that state if you're a female and you have sex with someone, you can withdraw consent, sometimes days later and... as what happened at Thaddeus' college, and accuse someone of rape and they will open an investigation. What also happened is the boy was kicked out of school and the girl got to stay. Both drunk, both want to fuck. She feels like a slut the next day and reports the boy for assault and the university must kick the male out. Apparently 19 year old boys are able to consciously make the right decisions when drunk but 19 year old girls cannot, when they're drunk. Sounds like some patriarchy to me.

Anyways, Thaddeus' tone on this second podcast came off extremely pompous once he was confronted with Rogan not agreeing with him anymore. Thaddeus' little chuckle and...."hmm, so strange. I thought you were with me and then you aren't."
And to tie this all in, that seems to be the attitude behind these movements of neo feminism, post modernism, changing definitions in order to force the impression of a world that doesn't exist outside sociology classes. There is no discussion, post modernists and their ilk are saying "this is how it is, no we're not going to go through any discussions of science or logic, and if you don't play along our side, which has grown to include politicians and media, will publicly affix the title of racist/transophobe/homophobe/misogynist/etc and seek out your employer for boycotts to get you fired". It's antithetical to how science and logic are supposed to work.

And like you said, Thaddeus and others are using anomalies from 0.05# of the population to discard the entire system in a bid for..... feelings.

The same thing goes for what is deemed offensive. Or that being offended somehow gives you moral authority simply because of how you feel.
Rogan asked Thaddeus at some point in that podcast, trying to gauge just how far down the rabbit hole he actually is, "so how do you feel about (transblack former NAACP organizer) Rachel Dolezal? And he answered "I agree with her" which Rogan was clearly baffled by. Thaddeus' answer as to why? Because if that's how she feels, that's how it is. That's what this entire contemporary social justice movement is based on; feelings. Not facts, not truths, not logic. Subjective, arbitrary feelings.

So to address your last paragraph, Cam... this is often where intent gets misconstrued. I've gone through my personal assessment of what I believe this entire thing is about. But, do I want Rachel Dolezal to be fined or arrested or even made to feel uncomfortable out in public? Of course not. But, as Jordan Peterson is finding out, their aims are not as hands off and this push seems to be followed up with aims to make sure there are consequences for not "getting on board" with their unfounded social theories as opposed to having a debate and letting the market of ideas determine who wins. That's my problem with it, that's Joe Rogan's problem with it, and that's Jordan Peterson's problem with it.

I got through about three paragraphs there X. I tried I swear.

Here's what I got out of it: "waaaaah, the white American male archetype is being discriminated against because he is no longer the go to for everything that is right and good in the world. Why should I have to acknowledge the value of the individual when clearly history has proven through immense violence against people that are diffferent that my way is the right way."

The only time I mentioned race was in relation to the attempt to change the definition of racism.

This isn't about race, Roc, it's about ideas.

It's about rewiring your brain to understand the reality of oppressed peoples. It's hard, I admit, but worth the struggle. Or you can choose to call it thought policing and defend the right to discriminate. Your choice.

Cam, can you clarify what is harmful about traditional gender roles?

Rocinante wrote:It's about rewiring your brain to understand the reality of oppressed peoples. It's hard, I admit, but worth the struggle. Or you can choose to call it thought policing and defend the right to discriminate. Your choice.

Who am I discriminating against and how am I discriminating them?

I sleep next to "oppressed peoples" every night. I've created an "oppressed people". I spend every thanksgiving, Christmas, help organize the Cristo Rey fiesta, every other weekend breaking bread with, watching sporting events with, fix roofs, sheds, build additions with oppressed people's.

And grew up mostly amongst and surrounded by oppressed peoples. Going to school with mostly oppressed peoples. I didn't have a non oppressed peoples girlfriend until I was 23.

I'm about as ingrained in oppressed peoples as one can be without having been adopted by a black woman in Detroit. I'm sure your multicultural, racially rich experiences in Jackson, WY trump mine, absolutely, I would never dream to suggest otherwise... but please tell me how I don't know anything about "oppressed peoples", middle aged, cisgendered white man. My own conversations with these oppressed peoples are certainly more dynamic than by what I encounter from whites and whites seem to be the only ones screaming at others or trying to vilify their entire character because they don't buy your conclusions... which is where the suspicions of virtue signaling were born. You don't live their life, so you dont have any room to act like you know the struggle by virtue of political opinion that I apparently can't by virtue of skin color and personal observations from living within that community.

If you have a differing opinion, share it. But youre not going to convince me otherwise by trying to assume the moral high ground based on some vague and unfalsifiable notions of sociology.

Also, we're talking about gender pronouns, not race.

xsanguine wrote:Cam, can you clarify what is harmful about traditional gender roles?

I would say the harm comes from pushing people towards things they don't want, or pushing them away from things they do want. Maybe a little boy wants to play with Barbies and do ballet or something, maybe a girl wants to play football. I would also say some harm comes to people who don't fit those traditional roles. This seems to be lessening over time, but, for example, male nurses can take a lot of shit for doing what they do.

I guess I'd summarize the harms as judgement and conformity.

Rocinante wrote:I got through about three paragraphs there X. I tried I swear.

Rocinante wrote:Here's what I got out of it: "waaaaah, the white American male archetype is being discriminated against because he is no longer the go to for everything that is right and good in the world. Why should I have to acknowledge the value of the individual when clearly history has proven through immense violence against people that are diffferent that my way is the right way."

If you admit that you didn't read his whole post, then it's kind of a dick move to put words in his mouth like that.

Cameron wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Cam, can you clarify what is harmful about traditional gender roles?

I would say the harm comes from pushing people towards things they don't want, or pushing them away from things they do want. Maybe a little boy wants to play with Barbies and do ballet or something, maybe a girl wants to play football. I would also say some harm comes to people who don't fit those traditional roles. This seems to be lessening over time, but, for example, male nurses can take a lot of shit for doing what they do.

I guess I'd summarize the harms as judgement and conformity.

Would it be safe for me to interpret that as traditional roles not being harmful but the push to force people into those roles is harmful?

The reason I brought it up is I don't believe we're smarter than nature. We see "stereotypical gender roles" throughout the mammalian world and throughout the animal kingdom. We exist without any real purpose but to produce and reproduce. What is the most effective way to nurture what we've reproduced?

And I guess my second point to that is, who is forcing people into traditional roles? I just want to be careful about false equivalencies that lead us to change evolutionary norms based on the false fear someone is actually forcing people into those roles.
Certainly everyone should be able to live their lives however they see fit so long as they're not harming another against their will. If you want to pretend to be a giraffe, or like we see in white male suburbia now; if you want to pretend and wish you're a different race by emulating their culture, then go fly your flag. But don't make it a crime or fireable offense to suggest it's not healthy for society at large. Even if those individuals are wrong. You demonstrate their incorrectness, not try to shut down their voice.

Unlike Roc, I did read your whole post. I've omitted some of it here and kept only the parts I'm responding to in the interest of space, I hope that's okay.

xsanguine wrote:Did you happen to see the Tucker Carlson clip where he asks BAMN organizer Yvette Felarca, "what is a fascist?", she then goes on to give a very specific definition that zeros in on exactly who her organization is targeting for violence. Her intentions are clear. And this is what is happening with definitions that used to be based in etymology. I do believe etymologists will look back in 300 years and without the benefit of our technology to record everything would wonder how the word changed definitions with a couple of decades...

Is she the asian chick with glasses? If so, yeah, I saw it, even though I try to avoid watching Tucker Carlson because of his punchable dickface. She's a middle school teacher or something, right? That's kind of a scary thought.

You watch Bill Nye now vs Bill Nye in the 90s when he talks about gender. The episode in the 90s, while dumbed down for it audience of children, explains the chromosomes and DNA and how that manifests itself into genitalia and reproduction. Now his story has changed. Okay, no biggie, whatcha got Billy... and he brings out someone trying to be funny whose message only boils down to "I can be whatever I want to be based on how I'm feeling at the moment", the music stops and he proclaims "the science is settled" without having introduced anything that could be considered scientific into the conversation.

I had his new Netflix show added to my queue but hadn't watched it. I saw a clip somewhere else of his gender rap or whatever, and I took the show out of my queue. For whatever good points he had, that shit was some of the most cringeworthy "entertainment" I have ever seen, and I don't want my fond childhood memories sullied. Some of my favorite memories from elementary school involve getting to watch Bill Nye in science class whenever we had a substitute teacher.

My problem with the movement is the attitude behind it. It's a movement attempting to create a science out of something not based in science. The aim is not science or logic, the aim is to make people feel better. So gender has always been synonymous with sex. Gender was never a "social construct" until post modernism came along and proclaimed it was. And anyone who says otherwise is a bigot. And what do we do with bigots? Ask Yvette Felarca and the Berkeley professors what we do.... and the slipper slope rages on.

That's kind of where I'm at. I believe the value in science is that it helps us find the truth. While it's admirable to want to shield others from pain, sometimes the truth hurts. If the truth is that some percentage of the transgender population is suffering from a mental illness, that truth will hurt, but running from it won't make it go away. Whether or not that is the case is not for me to say, but people who are actually qualified to weigh in on such topics have to be free to do so honestly without fears of being falsely accused of bigotry.

Anyways, Thaddeus' tone on this second podcast came off extremely pompous once he was confronted with Rogan not agreeing with him anymore. Thaddeus' little chuckle and...."hmm, so strange. I thought you were with me and then you aren't."
And to tie this all in, that seems to be the attitude behind these movements of neo feminism, post modernism, changing definitions in order to force the impression of a world that doesn't exist outside sociology classes. There is no discussion, post modernists and their ilk are saying "this is how it is, no we're not going to go through any discussions of science or logic, and if you don't play along our side, which has grown to include politicians and media, will publicly affix the title of racist/transophobe/homophobe/misogynist/etc and seek out your employer for boycotts to get you fired". It's antithetical to how science and logic are supposed to work.

The tone gets me. I think that's probably clear from other parts of this thread, where Roc's tone got under my skin quite a bit. I am always skeptical of people who hold themselves out as experts and then present precious little in the way of actual information or evidence to back up their position. Didactically telling me the correct way to think and feel without giving me good evidence is a good way to get me to turn on you. It's also just a terrible way to conduct yourself if you actually want to win people over to your position.

So to address your last paragraph, Cam... this is often where intent gets misconstrued. I've gone through my personal assessment of what I believe this entire thing is about. But, do I want Rachel Dolezal to be fined or arrested or even made to feel uncomfortable out in public? Of course not. But, as Jordan Peterson is finding out, their aims are not as hands off and this push seems to be followed up with aims to make sure there are consequences for not "getting on board" with their unfounded social theories as opposed to having a debate and letting the market of ideas determine who wins. That's my problem with it, that's Joe Rogan's problem with it, and that's Jordan Peterson's problem with it.

I agree, but at the same time, I understand why they don't want to let the marketplace of ideas determines who wins. They don't feel that they can afford to lose, so they are trying to foreclose the possibility. It's not right, but I get it. This is all just theoretical discussion to me, but for many of the most strident, it is their very identity, and really the only thing they seem to do with their lives.

Speaking of Bill Nye and Netflix. They have his old episodes on there, too, and that show where he explains gender and the science behind it from the 90s has been edited out.

It's exactly what I'm talking about. Let's just edit out and bury everything we don't like because feelings. Not because science or logic, not the pursuit of truth based on facts and evidence..... feelings.

It would be intellectually honest if him to go back and play that show out and pause at intervals to explain, scientifically, how he was wrong back in 91 or whenever it aired. There's a reason why he doesn't do that and it's because he can't.

xsanguine wrote:

Cameron wrote:

I would say the harm comes from pushing people towards things they don't want, or pushing them away from things they do want. Maybe a little boy wants to play with Barbies and do ballet or something, maybe a girl wants to play football. I would also say some harm comes to people who don't fit those traditional roles. This seems to be lessening over time, but, for example, male nurses can take a lot of shit for doing what they do.

I guess I'd summarize the harms as judgement and conformity.

Would it be safe for me to interpret that as traditional roles not being harmful but the push to force people into those roles is harmful?

The reason I brought it up is I don't believe we're smarter than nature. We see "stereotypical gender roles" throughout the mammalian world and throughout the animal kingdom. We exist without any real purpose but to produce and reproduce. What is the most effective way to nurture what we've reproduced?

And I guess my second point to that is, who is forcing people into traditional roles? I just want to be careful about false equivalencies that lead us to change evolutionary norms based on the false fear someone is actually forcing people into those roles.
Certainly everyone should be able to live their lives however they see fit so long as they're not harming another against their will. If you want to pretend to be a giraffe, or like we see in white male suburbia now; if you want to pretend and wish you're a different race by emulating their culture, then go fly your flag. But don't make it a crime or fireable offense to suggest it's not healthy for society at large. Even if those individuals are wrong. You demonstrate their incorrectness, not try to shut down their voice.

Yeah, the existence of the roles isn't harmful in and of itself, it's the push (by parents, teachers, peers, media, really every part of society) to get people to conform to roles that don't suit them, or to make them feel bad about filling a role that doesn't conform to the stereotype.

I agree that gender roles exist in the animal kingdom, but I don't know how much we can take from that. Humans do all sorts of "unnatural" shit, and a lot of it is highly beneficial.

I think there are many societal pressures that push people towards certain gender roles. From innocuous stuff like a grandma asking her granddaughter when she's going to have kids, to outright malicious stuff like kids in school making fun of a boy who likes art class more than gym class or something. For people who do largely conform to the stereotypes, a lot of it probably goes unnoticed, but I'd imagine that to people who don't conform, it probably feels like a deluge. But I think it's important to note that (at least from my perspective) society is getting better about this stuff, even if progress is slower than many would like.

Roc's busting balls. I'll bite once in awhile like today. I dig it, actually.

I see similarities in the "fat acceptance movement". The intent behind it is to get people to stop being pieces of shit to people because they're overweight. But instead of finding a way to convince people they're shitty human beings for discriminating against people that are overweight... the movement attempts to normalize unhealthy life habits. "Big is beautiful".... just, no. Look, I'm down to shame people that get their jollies off treating overweight people like shit... but let's not go crazy and stop trying to diplomatically convince people to adopt healthier lifestyles for their own benefit.

All of these movements just seem to be the left's version of "pray the gay away".

Cameron wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Would it be safe for me to interpret that as traditional roles not being harmful but the push to force people into those roles is harmful?

The reason I brought it up is I don't believe we're smarter than nature. We see "stereotypical gender roles" throughout the mammalian world and throughout the animal kingdom. We exist without any real purpose but to produce and reproduce. What is the most effective way to nurture what we've reproduced?

And I guess my second point to that is, who is forcing people into traditional roles? I just want to be careful about false equivalencies that lead us to change evolutionary norms based on the false fear someone is actually forcing people into those roles.
Certainly everyone should be able to live their lives however they see fit so long as they're not harming another against their will. If you want to pretend to be a giraffe, or like we see in white male suburbia now; if you want to pretend and wish you're a different race by emulating their culture, then go fly your flag. But don't make it a crime or fireable offense to suggest it's not healthy for society at large. Even if those individuals are wrong. You demonstrate their incorrectness, not try to shut down their voice.

Yeah, the existence of the roles isn't harmful in and of itself, it's the push (by parents, teachers, peers, media, really every part of society) to get people to conform to roles that don't suit them, or to make them feel bad about filling a role that doesn't conform to the stereotype.

I agree that gender roles exist in the animal kingdom, but I don't know how much we can take from that. Humans do all sorts of "unnatural" shit, and a lot of it is highly beneficial.

I think there are many societal pressures that push people towards certain gender roles. From innocuous stuff like a grandma asking her granddaughter when she's going to have kids, to outright malicious stuff like kids in school making fun of a boy who likes art class more than gym class or something. For people who do largely conform to the stereotypes, a lot of it probably goes unnoticed, but I'd imagine that to people who don't conform, it probably feels like a deluge. But I think it's important to note that (at least from my perspective) society is getting better about this stuff, even if progress is slower than many would like.

I just don't see a grandma asking her grand daughter when she's going to have kids as harmful. At least not in the sense where asking such a question should be discouraged. A lot would depend on context. Is grandma asking this knowing granddaughter doesn't want to have children? Then sure, if grandma is literally going out of her way to be a **** to her granddaughter to make her uncomfortable... that's a problem. I'm aware there are families like that but I don't believe them to be sizable.

I have a friend who practices the 124 gender pronouns things. She's my age, not 20 or 23. On Facebook she posted a picture of herself on a hike or something like. One of her aunts commented "pretty lady!" And my friend made a big deal about it. "Do NOT call me a lady." And proceeded to call her aunt out on this stuff. Her aunt's clear intent was to give a compliment, not to offend her sensibilities and enforce a sense of femininity on an unwilling hipster.

Any normal person would have just said thanks, or liked the comment, or if they really felt strongly just ignore it. Not rebuff someone's kindness because of your gender theory pseudo science. We used to call this stuff religion. The left used to be the voice of reason when it came to religion... now they've embraced it and have become saturated in it.

(Okay, okay... I admit that last part is me trolling Roc into another fight)

I guess I just see more examples like that than I do someone going out of their way to force their values on others. But I see your point regarding society needing to become more accepting. I just think we need to be careful we're not being so accepting that we're ignoring science, logic and truth to make people's feelings be the primary concern. Empathy needs to be extended, of course... but... well, I think you know what I'm failing to articulate.