Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

All I know is that I went through puberty decades ago, and I still don't really know what it means to "be a man" socially

It doesn't mean anything. I was raised without social gender roles and nobody I know in real life believes in them. There's no special set of things that only a man (or woman) can do or that a man (or woman) must do. No action or appearance or behavior is "masculine" or "feminine". There's just no such thing, they are empty words with no referents.

Except giving birth and fertilizing for birth. That's not a "must do" but it's the one thing you can say make up gender roles.

That’s sex, in both meanings of the word,  not gender. You don’t have to be female gendered to be able to be impregnated, and vice-versa.

[Frumple]

Except giving birth and fertilizing for birth. That's not a "must do" but it's the one thing you can say make up gender roles.

I mean, that's not actually true? There's folks born sterile or with otherwise nonfunctioning reproductive organs for whatever reason. Most cultures don't consider them some kind of non-gender because of it.

[Maximum Spin]

Except giving birth and fertilizing for birth. That's not a "must do" but it's the one thing you can say make up gender roles.

That's why I said "social". Biological sex is obviously a real and important distinction between people, yes, although I'll caution that it's scientifically defined in terms of the type of gametes which could be produced — everyone has a well-defined either male or female sex, even those with disorders of sexual development that might make it impossible to give birth or fertilize.

[Strongpoint]

Except giving birth and fertilizing for birth. That's not a "must do" but it's the one thing you can say make up gender roles.

I mean, that's not actually true? There's folks born sterile or with otherwise nonfunctioning reproductive organs for whatever reason. Most cultures don't consider them some kind of non-gender because of it.

Biologically speaking, sex is very simple - What kind of gametes a sexually reproducing organism produces. But if an organism loses (or fails to properly develop) the ability to produce gametes it doesn't mean it becomes sexless or somewhere in between, just like a human doesn't stop being a human after losing a limb.

With modern tech, an intersex person can still be qualified in a binary way. Not that it has practical value but it is possible.

All I know is that I went through puberty decades ago, and I still don't really know what it means to "be a man" socially

It doesn't mean anything. I was raised without social gender roles and nobody I know in real life believes in them. There's no special set of things that only a man (or woman) can do or that a man (or woman) must do. No action or appearance or behavior is "masculine" or "feminine". There's just no such thing, they are empty words with no referents.

There are no divinely established roles or something like that but I disagree that "masculine" and "feminine" are things that don't exist.  Sexual dimorphism is a fact of biology and it influences minds as well as other aspects of our bodies. And sexual dimorphism is also imprecise and male (by sex) can get female (by gender) characteristics and vice versa.

Problem is that it isn't studied well enough and it is HARD to tell where biology ends and social constructs begin. Oh, and it is a major point of contention for major religions which is never a good thing for calm research

[Starver]

With a bit of future help nominal posession of gametes might not be a limiting factor. Though whether that becomes practical prior to female parthenogenisis (or equivalen mixing) being a doable thing, and where we need to go from there in order to then gestate...

If you're restricting yourself to an in vivo process (purists and puritans may insist on that), then we'd need to look at heavy transhumanism (in either/both senses of the 'trans-' root), which will have its own worries for those that object to changes), but an in vitro element or two isn't really too far divorced from current 'allowable' technical assistance for the god-ordained order of things, if that's not already an Abomination.


(Under AmeriPol's jurisdiction, to be thread-relevent, the haters wil continue to hate, the needy will perhaps give it a go and the others will doubtless be wary as ever in their own particular way of it either being allowed or banned, depending upon their baseline lean of attitude and position.)

[McTraveller]

That's what makes it political though isn't it?  Just because you can do something, such as artificial wombs, should you?  Just because you can drill oil in Alaska, should you?  Who gets to decide what you should and shouldn't do, after all?

It's the timeless debate over how to do you really define where the boundary between self and collective exists, if there even is one?  Don't all issues of "bodily autonomy" in actuality have effects on greater society?  Why can't we just let people OD themselves on fentanyl, why isn't that bodily autonomy?  Why can't we just let people be obese?  (Oh maybe it's because it adds costs to society that result from interactions...)  So there is fear at worst and real concern at best that we just don't understand the long-term social effects of suddenly changing the status quo of what worldview changes will have on society.  It doesn't even have to be philosophical, it could just be "hey wow look how great industry is, we can now feed so many more people and improve quality of life!" but now a century later we realize "oh there's no such thing as a free lunch, industry also causes health issues and impacts worldwide ecological and climate systems."

I mean look at post-modernism, where truth is relative: that is having real physical impact on society, as people's "my truth is truth" results in public health issues due to anti-vax, distrust of all institutions (except My institution, of course!), drops in education and subsequent drops in the quality of products and services of all types, etc. because who are you to say my answer to that engineering problem is "wrong", etc.

[Rolan7]

I do have a position on people's right to self-harm!  It's a little nuanced because it's a complex subject, but the ideal is finding a balance where we help people overcome self-destruction while respecting their autonomy.

But that's moot since gender-affirming care is literally an antidote to self-destructive behavior.  Denying it is what drives people to alcoholism, abuse of other drugs, and often death.

Just because we can treat cancer, should we?  yes.  This is not a dinosaur park, these are treatments which have improved countless lives.

And yet the question being posed here in America is not "Should people do this thing?", it's "Should we ALLOW people to do this thing?".  Even "Should we criminalize mentioning the existence of this thing, and enforce dress codes on ADULT CITIZENS to eliminate this thing?"

It's fine to have doubts about HRT.  I don't know anything about treating cancer, but there sure is a lot of money involved... maybe there's a profit incentive to make people into lifelong cancer patients.  And there sure are a lot more people on chemo now than there were a few decades ago!  I'm not *saying* it's a scam or a fad, I'm just asking questions!  Questions like "Should we allow these deadly chemicals to be pumped into already-sick people?"  Look, cancer patients are abnormal rare, so why should we legalize these chemicals?  For some edge-cases?  I hear they have a high mortality rate already...

Point is, the appeal to nature is a ridiculous argument where medicine is concerned.  Also hormones are not the cash-cow that other life-saving treatments like insulin and chemotherapy are.  ALSO also, hormone therapy wasn't a problem for older cis women, and mastectomies for men weren't a problem until trans men started getting them.

It's not about the treatments, it's literally just queerphobia (and queer-elimination) hiding behind "concern".  And I do not blame *anybody* for falling for it, because the real money is behind the conservative propaganda machine.  How could I blame anyone for being concerned for kids?  (not to mention my own internalized homophobia, even now)

Should we allow people to do this thing?  Yes as if it were any other medical procedure, which means allowing children to benefit from it also.  Should there be reasonable limits?  Yeah, like any other medical procedure.  I accept the medical consensus which is to pause puberty before undertaking mostly-reversible HRT.

Should we be worried about the senators attempting to literally banning knowledge and legislating chromosome-based fashions?  Is it okay for me to call them reactionary conservatives obsessed with breeding who seek to eliminate entire classes of people, or are dogwhistles only okay when they do it?

[Strongpoint]

It's fine to have doubts about HRT.  I don't know anything about treating cancer, but there sure is a lot of money involved... maybe there's a profit incentive to make people into lifelong cancer patients.  And there sure are a lot more people on chemo now than there were a few decades ago!  I'm not *saying* it's a scam or a fad, I'm just asking questions!  Questions like "Should we allow these deadly chemicals to be pumped into already-sick people?"  Look, cancer patients are abnormal rare, so why should we legalize these chemicals?  For some edge-cases?  I hear they have a high mortality rate already...

This analogy is imprecise.

The aim of cancer treatment is to restore the normal state of the body. Cancer may be natural but it is not normal.

When puberty blockers are used to delay puberty that started too early it is also a treatment aimed to restore the normal state of the body and it is quite different from using the very same blockers to prevent normal development of the body.

Should medicine be also used to move away from a normal state? Well, yes if it improves the quality of life. But do not say that it is the same. It is not.

It's not about the treatments, it's literally just queerphobia (and queer-elimination) hiding behind "concern".  And I do not blame *anybody* for falling for it, because the real money is behind the conservative propaganda machine.  How could I blame anyone for being concerned for kids?

The fact that the bigoted conservative propaganda machine exists doesn't mean that your side doesn't get some things wrong. Neither it means that all people who disagree with you are doing so because of that propaganda or only because of that propaganda.

And yet the question being posed here in America is not "Should people do this thing?", it's "Should we ALLOW people to do this thing?".  Even "Should we criminalize mentioning the existence of this thing, and enforce dress codes on ADULT CITIZENS to eliminate this thing?...

Should we be worried about the senators attempting to literally banning knowledge and legislating chromosome-based fashions?  Is it okay for me to call them reactionary conservatives obsessed with breeding who seek to eliminate entire classes of people, or are dogwhistles only okay when they do it?

This is a huge problem. And I really dislike a quite apparent raise of religious extremism and fascism in the USA, should those people truly come to power... the whole world will suffer.

But here is a simple hypothetical example. I consider indoctrination of children in any religion to be a very bad thing, borderline abuse. Something I am very strongly against. But if some nutjobs would decide to pass legislation canceling freedom of religion, I would be like "Guys, are you insane?"

BUT I wouldn't want to be silenced saying "Lying to children about the existence of God is wrong" with something like "Hey! You are on the side of those fascists who want to ban religion! You are just like them. Shut up!"

Similarly, I dislike being called a transphobe (directly or indirectly) simply because I dare to have an opinion that certain medical procedures are not a good idea.

[McTraveller]

My general take is that what is beneficial for a particular individual, may not be beneficial for society as a whole, and vice-versa.  It's a common rhetorical pitfall to assume that what is good for the individual is good for society, and what is good for society is good for individuals.

Each situation has to be evaluated carefully, and especially in light of unintended consequences, which are really difficult to know about ahead of time.

And that's not even considering people who intentionally don't care either about the collective or the individual, so long as they get "their way."

I mean consider "less sensitive" things like interest rates: reducing inflation is indeed good for the collective, but it does have actual acute detrimental effects on individuals.  Or consider how washing clothes is good for an individual, but if everyone does it it can overstress ecologies and poison water supplies if the wastewater isn't treated properly.

[Rolan7]

Similarly, I dislike being called a transphobe (directly or indirectly) simply because I dare to have an opinion that certain medical procedures are not a good idea.

I haven't called you a transphobe (directly or indirectly) because that would be a waste of my time.  I'm arguing for trans rights and against transphobic legislation.  Whether any one individual changes their mind is irrelevant to me unless they're a legislator.

My position is not an attack on you, and I find the implication deeply ironic.

It's fine to have doubts about HRT.  I don't know anything about treating cancer, but there sure is a lot of money involved... maybe there's a profit incentive to make people into lifelong cancer patients.  And there sure are a lot more people on chemo now than there were a few decades ago!  I'm not *saying* it's a scam or a fad, I'm just asking questions!  Questions like "Should we allow these deadly chemicals to be pumped into already-sick people?"  Look, cancer patients are abnormal rare, so why should we legalize these chemicals?  For some edge-cases?  I hear they have a high mortality rate already...

This analogy is imprecise.

The aim of cancer treatment is to restore the normal state of the body. Cancer may be natural but it is not normal.

When puberty blockers are used to delay puberty that started too early it is also a treatment aimed to restore the normal state of the body and it is quite different from using the very same blockers to prevent normal development of the body.

Should medicine be also used to move away from a normal state? Well, yes if it improves the quality of life. But do not say that it is the same. It is not.

So I was right that you consider people on hormone treatment abnormal.  I didn't expect you to call people with cancer abnormal too.

We can literally agree to disagree since you pointed out that it doesn't matter whether a treatment is "unnatural", or "abnormal", or "icky".  Only whether it improves lives.
(which HRT does, according to medical studies)
(and if we didn't know that, we should still default to permitting it without HARD evidence that it's harmful)

It's not about the treatments, it's literally just queerphobia (and queer-elimination) hiding behind "concern".  And I do not blame *anybody* for falling for it, because the real money is behind the conservative propaganda machine.  How could I blame anyone for being concerned for kids?

The fact that the bigoted conservative propaganda machine exists doesn't mean that your side doesn't get some things wrong. Neither it means that all people who disagree with you are doing so because of that propaganda or only because of that propaganda.

Nah.  Transphobia and homophobia are unnatural.  We are indoctrinated into them from a young age.  They are wings of self-perpetuating patriarchal ideology.

That's my opinion anyway, if you can tolerate it.  I'm not a sociologist.  I do know that cultures on the fringes of Western imperialism had (and sometimes have) much freer conceptions of gender and womens rights.  And children today are similarly more open-minded as we *begin* to reduce the indoctrination of "traditional western values" in our media and schools.

"My side"...  I feel like you're reading personal attacks out of my position, and again, that would be a waste of my time.  I'm fighting back against an ideology that wants to eliminate me, not against you personally.  You've said you support adults having the freedom to choose HRT so idk seems like we're on similar sides.  That's not my concern.  I AM speaking emotionally at times, but that's directed at the lawmakers.

And yet the question being posed here in America is not "Should people do this thing?", it's "Should we ALLOW people to do this thing?".  Even "Should we criminalize mentioning the existence of this thing, and enforce dress codes on ADULT CITIZENS to eliminate this thing?...

Should we be worried about the senators attempting to literally banning knowledge and legislating chromosome-based fashions?  Is it okay for me to call them reactionary conservatives obsessed with breeding who seek to eliminate entire classes of people, or are dogwhistles only okay when they do it?

This is a huge problem. And I really dislike a quite apparent raise of religious extremism and fascism in the USA, should those people truly come to power... the whole world will suffer.

Exactly!
(though be careful with that F-word!  You can't call it out without being a triggered lefty snowflake.  It's only fascism if it's from the Predappio region of Italy, otherwise it's just sparkling authoritarianism)

[dragdeler]

It's useless anyway since nobody identifies with the label. There is only left, our my side. Nobody gets in. I am the only leftwinger, you apoliticos.

[anewaname]

fascist = just another variant of the "give me authority/respect my authority/no I won't share" crowd.

[Strongpoint]

I haven't called you a transphobe (directly or indirectly) because that would be a waste of my time.  I'm arguing for trans rights and against transphobic legislation.  Whether any one individual changes their mind is irrelevant to me unless they're a legislator.

I should be more precise in my wording. I didn't mean you, I was speaking in more generic terms. I got called many things ranging from bigot and transphobe to satanist and communist and it is kinda annoying at times.

So I was right that you consider people on hormone treatment abnormal.

It is not exactly what I said. It is abnormal for a human body to receive hormones from an external source as well as it is abnormal for a human body to have the production of its own hormones stopped. HRT is disrupting the normal function of the  human body.

Note that normal is one of those words that have a wide range of meanings, from being natural, to being average, to not being rare, to not being outside safe\acceptable and more. Your example, a cancer tumor, is normal in some contexts and abnormal in another.
 
The answer to a seemingly simple question "are people undergoing HRT normal?" really depends on what is meant by the norm.

[dragdeler]

I think Sega's Umberto the dolphin defined fascism quite succinctly, it's when you're really into depictions of fascies. But what does it matter, this pokemon suffers from the same disadvantages as all prophecy types: a hundred percent weakness to "nu-uh" and "yourself".

Spoiler:  I was curious, do of it what you want (click to show/hide)

Food   Testosterone   DHEA   Androstenedione   Progesterone   Estrogens   Total steroid hormones   Phytoestrogens
Butter   <0.005   0.115   0.598   14.1   0.029   14.8   
Cereals and breads                           1113
Chicken   <0.0004–0.003   <0.002   <0.002   0.023   0.0004–<0.005   0.008–0.028   
Eggs   0.004–0.19   0.005–0.176   0.183–0.927   1.25–4.36   n.d.–0.14   1.44–5.79   
Fish (herring, carp)   <0.002–0.007   0.016–0.06   0.003–0.029   <0.01–0.051   <0.005   0.036–0.147   
Fruits                           73
Ham   0.004–0.005   0.024–0.064   0.009–0.039   0.096–0.151   <0.005   0.138–0.259   2.3
Legumes (nonsoy)                           504
Meat/beef   <0.002–0.4   0.01–0.09   0.02–0.08   0.01–2.15   <0.005   0.047–2.72   
Milk   <0.001–0.009   0.013   0.021   0.981–1.2   0.004–0.015   1.03–1.26   0.5–1.2
Nuts and seedsa                       0.008–0.02   32403
Potatoes (white)   <0.002   0.0309   0.005   0.507   <0.005   0.550   1.4
Soybeans/products   <0.005   0.031   <0.005   <0.03   <0.012   0.083   19837
Turkey   <0.0004–0.0023   0.005   0.006   0.818   0.0004–0.003   0.005–0.083   
Wheatb   0.009–0.019   0.015–0.067   0.01–0.048   0.06–0.286   <0.012   0.106–0.420   9.8
Vegetables                           <1–100
Yogurt   <0.001   0.011   0.056   1.33   0.018   1.42   
Oil (olive)   0.002   0.004   0.002   0.008   0.005   0.021   180.7

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2397847320936281

[McTraveller]

I was curious so I read the linked page.  The table at the bottom of the linked page is telling: the total recommended daily intake due to food is on the order of 35 units per day, while the endogenous production is on the order of 10000 per day.

Eating food doesn't appear to be a meaningful "external source" of hormones.  Especially if you're a woman, total self-produced hormones is "up to 44000 per day, or even over 300000 during pregnancy" while the max recommended from food is 35.

The article itself even says:

Regardless of whether a food is a major contributor, the overall hormone content of food is negligible compared to the amounts reported to be produced within the body.