AceTKen

AceTKen, 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

I first became familiar with the idea of gender in High School in the 90’s. Unlike most, I have forestry credits as I was in boarding school and had some very… odd classes. We ran an apiary and made our own honey, kept and raced sled dogs, worked a restaurant we ran, ran a library, etc.

We were tasked with taking care of a square kilometre of forest up in Northern Canada and, as such, had to learn about plant species native to the region. We learned about plant gender.

Plants have a gender because they lack a biological sex; it was a different classification system. In regards to humans, however, the dictionaries (and people using the term) at the time used it interchangeably with the term sex. The only differentiation that I ever saw between the two was in dealing with plants OR academic papers involving humans that may have thought that “sex” was a dirty word, but even then they were discussing the same thing.

Intersex humans were, at least taxonomically, an aberration and not a classification. Early on they presented and operated as whatever their dominant sexual traits would indicate and frequently did not deviate and there was little issue with this.

But… even since the early 80’s when I was born, there was a wide berth in what it meant to be a man or woman. When people were talking about stereotypes, they seemed to be speaking about things that I’d seen in old TV shows from the 50’s and 60’s, not things I was familiar with in real life. That “housewife and single breadwinner husband” home shit was long past and seemed antiquated even then. It wasn’t BAD to be stereotypical or not, mind you, but other than a few farming households I knew, I never saw the “stay-at-home-Mom” dynamic. Every family had a different dynamic and people fit where they built themselves space to do so. I knew very few “stereotypical male” Dads or “stereotypical female” Moms other than on TV, and we all knew damn well that TV wasn’t true to life.

When I witnessed feminist messaging start to get big in the 2010s speaking about this stuff like it was common, expected, and had to be destroyed, it was odd to me. It was like they were fighting with ghosts from days long past.

I recognize that my personal experiences don’t match everyone, but I lived in Cincinnati, Edmonton, Calgary, Saudi Arabia, Kingston, Amsterdam, Thailand, Kentucky, and many more. The only place I witnessed what could be described as “traditional roles” was in Saudi, and even then it was only defined by a few laws, not the way people actually acted. I knew many friends that had their father completely cowed by their mother even in that insane theocracy.

All that to say that gender in humans… doesn’t seem to have a purpose to me. Since gender can be fluid in humans, it is not at all worth categorizing in humans. It means, effectively, nothing. It’s like trying to categorize hair colour down to the hex code; it accomplishes nothing whatsoever.

Sex is a medically distinguishing characteristic. I get why it needs to exist. Gender? I don’t understand why it came to be used for anything as it hasn’t done anything other than stir basic culture war garbage.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

So like… Where are they all? Is there still a brain drain to the US?

AceTKen, 3 months ago

Huh. Reading the article now that I have time, they cite massive immigration as an issue, not to mention training people from other countries who then go home.

I know people in hospitals that retired when COVID hit, but not GPs. Not to say it isn’t the case, but I’d like to see a large study showing WTF is going on.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

Disagree. That guy is in decent shape.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

There’s a pretty large delta between doing nothing and murdering people.

AceTKen, 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

I want a system designed by people who know how to design systems. I want those systems to be greed-proof and have clearly laid out goals. I want economic systems to be circular with caps on the highest and lowest while still rewarding those who excel.

I want corporate and income controls. I want environmental policy that fucks over economic policy instead of the opposite. I want to heavily discourage corporate manipulation of human systems (such as addiction).

I want news to be publicly funded and with honesty legally mandated. I want more and better political parties. I want a legal system that doesn’t need a degree and endless buckets of money to tell you if you’re committing a crime or not. I want a legal system that applies to rich and poor in equal measure and with proportional punishments.

Yeah, I want a revolution. The problem is that everyone who also wants a revolution has a very different idea of the outcome of that revolution and I don’t want someone to get in their idiot head that murdering everyone else who deviates from their revolution is a good idea. Because it isn’t unless you want the revolution to be won by 10 hyper-opinionated assholes.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

With what? I know what a revolution is and how they can function.

I was speaking about the outcomes. Just because you get that many people together to agree that something must be done, doesn’t mean they agree with what will happen after you’ve won the revolution.

What policies will be put into place if any? What about when two groups who were formerly together in the revolution completely disagree on what to do with the systems they are building? Do they just all kill each other then?

AceTKen, 3 months ago

I appreciate the links and the discussion (not to mention the not devolving into insulting rhetoric).

I am heavily involved in local politics and I’m always interested in revolutionary policies as long as they are economically sound and actually function. Unlike many arguments I’m sure we both had online, I will actively read the links you posted to me.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

I agree with the spirit of your post. Enjoying difficulty isn’t universal and says something about what it entails for each person and what challenges they enjoy.

Sports? Yeah. Why play if you’re not having fun and challenging yourself to do as well as you can?

Band? I… dunno about that. I sing in bands not because it’s hard, but because it’s entertaining to viewers and myself, and many people like being good at something and showing off.

Video games? I play for a good story, exploration, novelty, beauty, or solid gameplay. The challenge is irrelevant and an extreme challenge can cause me to quit and turn me off a game completely.

To me, it’s like reading a book. There’s a time and place for something like House of Leaves (the Dark Souls of books), but the matter of it being hard isn’t the reward. As I say in my Steam reviews, I don’t play games in order to develop Stockholm syndrome. I’ve gotten more out of a game like Eversion than any Souls-like I’ve ever played.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

All good. Sometimes it’s hard on the internet since we rely on the reader’s comprehension. Happens to me constantly!

I fully agree with your interpretation. The sports thing has always mystified me, but I think you just got at something that struck home a little in a way it never has before, so this is kind of an accidental impromptu CMV.

Not to sideline the discussion, but previous, it was “I do not get sports fans. Playing a sport, that I get. You win, you lose. Watching a sport though? Why? You have nothing to do with the outcome. There is no victory for you in this. You gain nothing and all it does is cost you time and money.”

But you’re right. Sports fans in my family really do what you said above.

I still don’t get the spending more money you than you can afford on memorabilia and other garbage trinkets, the making it a large part of your personality, the animosity with the other teams, the violence to their city when they lose, and many other bits, but the watching makes sense now.

I legit appreciate the response!

AceTKen, 3 months ago

Almost. This states why the site creator believes what they do, but not you. This is more “Fight This Website” than “Change My View.”

This would fit more as an “ARTICLE”-based submission currently if you submitted the article as the submission and only had a few thoughts yourself or were looking for discussion on it.

As we say on the side,

DO NOT Copy an entire article in your post body. It’s just messy. Link to it and maybe summarize if needed.

So we are looking for a link to the site, yes, but also YOUR thoughts on why you believe what it says or where you differ and why.

With the above in mind, I’d also request that you remove the final paragraph about them soliciting donations.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

Much appreciated! The post can stay for discussion purposes.

AceTKen, 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Okay, so first off, you will not know where I stand on this issue from my response. All I’m doing is commenting on the article and initial post and the logic surrounding it.

Common Sense

“Common Sense” is a moral standpoint. Moral standpoints are individual to the person, and not logic-based. It’s a shortcut way of saying “I can’t / won’t tell you why I think this, but you should think this way too.” Generally the phrase is used by people trying to avoid having to justify anything and means next to nothing. It’s called using “weasel words” and I strive to avoid using them where I can. I’d strongly suggest avoiding phrases like this as it’s not a strong argument.

Law

The website states a few things based on legality (in the UK), which is very much still up in the air in many places. Can a minor consent? Depends on where you are, and in some cases, to what.

For example, in North America, can a minor consent to having their ears pierced? A tattoo? Alcohol? With parental consent, yes.

In most place in North America, can a minor go to war? Have sex with a 50-year old? No.

Legality doesn’t mean something is good or bad. It’s simply a statement of governmental allowance, and in some cases the laws are, to use a very scientific parlance, “fucking stupid and wholly arbitrary based on what some people felt hundreds of years ago.”

Reversibility

Are puberty blockers reversible? Kinda yes and kinda no. “Yes” in that you can stop taking them and puberty will occur. “No” in that it will not be a normal puberty as it was supposed to occur, and there are side effects depending on the drug and how long it’s used. This is intentional in this case, however.

I’m not a medical professional though, I so can’t comment in too much depth. What studies agree on is that side-effects can take a long time to dissipate (if ever) and can be pretty bad. As with any medication, there can be dangers. That is inarguable. As with most “illnesses,” it all depends on if you see the cure as worse than the disease.

Studies

As far as the science… What I can say is that my wife has had research papers blocked and studies not funded in her field because they didn’t agree with the people who granted funding. Not that it disagreed, but it approached her chosen topics with neutrality, and that was not okay. It’s very common to only fund or publish research that agrees with and reinforces the personal morality of the overarching body. I find this absolutely vile.

Studies on male victims of domestic violence that she was attempting were heavily pushed back on by those in power because they felt that simply looking at males in the situation would actively detract from female victims. All that even though the rates of victimization were roughly 50 / 50 between males and females. This thinking is incredibly common at present.

Scientific journalism, in my opinion, is fucked right now. In addition to the replication crisis, and the “pay for publishing” scandals, there’s too much emotion and politics and not enough logic and detachment. Funding, replication, and publishing should not be gatekept; good science is good science regardless of if it agrees with you or not.

The public shouldn’t be swindled into backing policy decisions based solely on the (often arbitrary) morality and choices of a governing body.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

Well, to be fair, it seems like odd wording on the part of the Mayo Clinic. They do have a section below called “What are the possible side effects and complications?” and they don’t list any of them under “Are the changes permanent?”

Ignoring the temporary side effects (which seem somewhat standard for any shot), they list:

Use of GnRH analogues also might have long-term effects on:

• Growth spurts
• Bone growth
• Bone density
• Fertility, depending on when the medicine is started

Those seem like they could be pretty permanent, no?

AceTKen, 3 months ago

I agree with your first assertion. I’ve personally always found cosmetic surgery (when not blatantly required like in cases of reconstruction) to be very off-putting. I’ve never seen injected lips, ass implants, breast implants, or muscle implants anywhere that look good (or are worth the scarring). That’s opinion however. If an adult is down with doing it to themselves, then go hard as long as you understand what goes with it.

As far as the professional sign-offs, I’d urge you to rethink that one. That’s… pretty easy to find. I don’t know if you’ve ever had to get a professional to prescribe painkillers, but they can and will prescribe some heinous shit to people based on nothing but unverified complaints. For examples, see the entire Opioid Epidemic.

Ever tried to get a medical professional to prescribe marijuana? It’s dead simple.

Some professionals don’t care about anything but getting you in and out of their office as fast as they can, and the only justification they need is “I felt the patient needed it because they said so.”

It’s logically faulty to ascribe a higher moral or ethical standard to medical professionals than you would to the worst people in your industry. There are bad doctors just like there are shady mechanics.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

I would also recommend that you add our disclaimer to your thread as this will be an… unpopular one.

See here: lemmy.ca/post/15242874

AceTKen, 3 months ago

Well they’re citing studies, but the science in these cases hasn’t been around long enough to do a truly impactful large-scale longitudinal study, so I assume you’re correct.

Besides that, doing studies dealing with mental impact is always kind of iffy as everything must be essentially self-reported.

The soft sciences are an absolute bitch to measure correctly.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

I would like there to be, but I don’t know if we are capable of checks or if that would help in some of these cases when the issue is based on something reported but not concretely provable.

Like… Cancer has a physical component. It can be proven.

But mental issue and pain? How can we do that except to trust the doctor or send a person to redo the same process with another (potentially working in the same vein as the first) professional? Keep in mind that if two doctors were made required, you’d promptly find two that have colluded to do the shady in-out check (potentially in the same clinic and as a business in and of itself) and then they’re good to go. There needs to be something else in place to stop bad actors, but I don’t have an answer for how.

And I’m in Canada, so people abusing the system for free until they can find the right doctor who WILL prescribe them what they’re looking for is another abuse case.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

I would argue that medical professionals with expertise in the field, research scientists in the field, and those that have been through the experiences presented should also have a say.

Potentially the general public matters as well if you’re in a country with socialized healthcare as technically everyone bankrolls these treatments if they’re covered, but I could hear an argument against that.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

Tiger example

True, but logic could also state that a group standing their ground and making loud noises would drive the tiger away. Quickly arming yourself, defence, deterrence, and group tactics are a logical response. A little pre-planning leads you to be able to curtail an emotional response later. Running and screaming as the emotional response would most likely lead to at least one person being injured (as tigers can outrun humans in short bursts) if not killed and eaten.

Kids example

Yes. As a parent, yes, you go a little insane. Logic led me to say that we could handle one (which isn’t a decision everyone gets to make). Emotion led me to actually be a Father. Kids absolutely play on and demolish both of those processes. Kids are chaos incarnate.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

You’re correct. I typed it in a hurry and realized that some of my examples were poorly worded. I’ve now corrected them and added some detail.

I agree that they can work in tandem, but it relies on a well-developed sense of logic and allowing it to take the fore. Certainly emotion can be useful, but only if you apply a logical process to it instead of a simple justification.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

Heh. Sorta. I’m saying plan in advance (as in before the theoretical expedition), and it seems like you’re saying planning later (as in after the first failure).

I see what you mean though!

AceTKen, 3 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Sorry, I meant to reply earlier, but… real life. I don’t like the theme permeating your post that states that centrists are stupid and mean, therefore you won’t debate any longer. It’s the reason one of the rules here is “if you are unwilling to be wrong, then you have lost at the outset.” You have to prove out your ideas, not just state them, claim the moral high ground, and run away.

Also, I’m an Economist by schooling so please keep in mind that when I say that “I don’t think you are arguing for what you feel you are” that I have a bit of experience in the field. The policies you’re arguing for will not produce the results you wish they might and have not done so for any country at any point in history.

I would disagree that the arguments I stated are cold-hearted, and quite the opposite. Looking after the people you’ve accepted into your country and making sure they’re taken care of just the same as any person that has been there since birth is kind. It is good. It is what you should be doing. Why would you accept them if you could not do so?

Would you adopt a child if you already had 12 children and were struggling greatly to care for them? To me, that would be irresponsible. Moreso, it would be cruel to the children brought in. Especially if you brought an honours student home in order to do nothing but, say, wash the dishes at your home. The resources for that child must come from somewhere. Which of your other children would you take them from? Why is it fair to harm your current family simply so you can have more people? Why is simply more better?

Fixing economic systems and building up a more equal and fair economy in your country is a good thing. If your country builds a solid model and fixes itself, you can attempt to help other countries and bring them to where you are. You can model proper systems. You can show them what you did without forcing it on them.

“Fixing” other countries outright? At this stage in politics and international diplomacy, that’s just meddling and reeks of a saviour complex. It will not be welcome unless you’re speaking of simply dumping money on them, but that’s… also a problem. It doesn’t solve the issues that you stated previously because NOTHING will redress those issues. The world stage is not a tit-for-tat system. Damn near everyone has wronged others over the course of history, and also vice-versa. There’s not a running tally, and people would never agree on the harm or reparations owed.

The only realistic thing you can do is wipe the slate clean unless you’d like to try and prove out an argument where you state how we are responsible for the sins of those that came before us and we should wallow in those sins forever.

AceTKen, 3 months ago

So… Claiming the high ground and running away again and being insulting while doing so.

We don’t do that here. We’re grown ups and I must insist that you try to be one too.

Have an actual conversation (hence the name of the sub) or bow out gracefully and admit that you are not equipped to do so.