bullying

[Riotcoke]

You should be, or you'd look so weird next to me.

I don't have a Tintin haircut and don't laugh hysterically over random word salads.

Hey, the word salads were funny.

[deleted_user0]

Wow... dolan leaving out important info just to have the narrative support his point. I'm flabbergasted. Stunned. Absolutely suprised. Unheard of. My entire worldview destroyed. This has never happened before. My lordm a paragon of truth led astray. I dont want to believe itm

[lejend]

Interestingly, Money is the guy that gave us the distinction between sex and gender.

[Riotcoke]

You should be, or you'd look so weird next to me.

I don't have a Tintin haircut and don't laugh hysterically over random word salads.

Also if you mock someone's appearance, you have to post your own picture first.

[fightinfrenchman]

You should be, or you'd look so weird next to me.

I don't have a Tintin haircut and don't laugh hysterically over random word salads.

You sound like you have sand in your teeth

[rsy]

I feel like the toxicity level in this thread is reaching its limits. Maybe we should delete some posts or something? @XeeleeFlower @edeholland

[rsy]

Like I get that it's a touchy subject but why do we have to get personal talking about haircuts and shit

[fightinfrenchman]

Like I get that it's a touchy subject but why do we have to get personal talking about haircuts and shit

Dolan is just jealous that he didn't get to sleep with @Riotcoke like I did

[Dolan]

@Dolan

Could be, but the burden of proof is on the one making such extraordinary claims, such as that culture trumps nature and can turn an average female into someone who is more aggressive than an average male. The correlation that males are more aggressive than females pretty much holds in most of the animal kingdom, with maybe a few exceptions. It surely holds in most mammals, which humans are part of.

You missed the point. Im saying you don't know if people act the way they do because of their sex or because of the way they've been raised. You test someone who's 20 years old how do you know the results are based off of whether or not their gonads are producing T or E, or because of 20 years of cultural influence. You're assuming that its because of their sex and saying that I have to prove its not, which makes no sense. Its a huge jump from "Baby girls are more likely to look at faces than baby boys" to really anything.

If culture or rearing couldn't make someone born a boy to be an actual girl/woman, what else could? What kind of rearing or cultural norms could turn someone from male to female, if "gender" is "socially constructed" or those sexually dimorphic traits are "socially constructed"?

Again, one example doesn't prove anything, but I'm of the mindset that you shouldn't force a child into any sort of gender role. I'm fairly certain the reason why he was depressed and suicidal and committed suicide wasn't because he was forced to wear dresses and play with dolls, but rather because of the hormone therapy and other terrible things they forced him and his brother to do(which you conveniently left out). For example, " Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role. Reimer said that, as a child, he had to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks". Reimer said that Money forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Reimer said that Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections". On "at least one occasion", Reimer said that Money took a photograph of the two children doing these activities. Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity" ". Who knows what other fucked up things they were forced to do. We'll never know for sure, but it seems much more likely that those things as well as potential genetic issues(his brother was a diagnosed schizophrenic) caused him to live a terrible in miserable life rather than the dolls and the dresses, but who know.

Well, it's an extreme example, that's why it's so singular. You don't run into such completely fucked up examples every day, because doctors don't often destroy someone's penis during circumcision and then decide to turn that infant into the opposite sex, because that's what the dominant "social theories" on "gender" say. So, of course, you're not going to find such examples in large numbers. There can only be one in a few decades maybe. It was basically an example of performing heavy-handed animal research on humans. Applying a misguided theory on an actual human and gambling with their fate. And look how it turned out to be. But anyway, the example was not meant to illustrate how this can destroy someone's life, the point wasn't that David Reimer had a difficult life and eventually killed himself. The point was that all their attempts at making him become female failed. They made him wear dresses, play with girls' toys, the whole textbook stuff. Sure, there were also abuses of all sorts, as you mentioned. But that's not why his conversion from one "gender" to another didn't work out eventually. It's because deep down, he was a biological male. And no amount of social engineering could turn him into a biological female. No psychological or cultural norms could make him feel female if he was born male.

[Googol]

Go to some pub, have a beer forget the past, strive to be friends.

[Dolan]

Like I get that it's a touchy subject but why do we have to get personal talking about haircuts and shit

That's true and I rarely resort to personal attacks, but that's because he used a psychological trick, he tried to make me look as if I'm some kind of socially undesirable guy. That's why he said "I'm glad you didn't come at the LAN". That's what he was trying to imply, which is just a sneaky kind of personal attack. Humans can be so subtle at this sort of things. Such as by using this "wolf pack" argument: I'm part of the pack (I was at the LAN event), you're not, so my buddies will support me, which makes you weird.

But it won't work on me, because I'm no regular Joe. I can read this sort of tricks.

[deleted_user0]

Maybe, but what is your point? It's obvious you're misunderstanding the gender theory. It's not that people are just born blank slates, and that we raise them to be a certain gender. It's rather that certain expressions that we associate with gender are culturally determined. It's also not that you can turn anyone into a boy or a girl if they're not born that way or rehardless of what they were born as or that they were born as neither and that society has to raise them in a certain way. but rather, that what people are born as doesn't necessarily relate one on one with what's insides someones pants. Nothing you say about or nothing that can be concluded from the "scientific example" you posted denies that it is possible to be "born" as a girl while you have a penis.

[Dolan]

I never said that cultural norms don't shape how different sexes express their nature. Of course they do and some cultural norms can be crazier than others.

But still, what could cultural norms do to mold these biological facts in any direction?

Steroids influence and control how the brain gets formed and how it works in both infants and adults, right? Can you accept this argument that points to a basic and fundamental sexual difference that controls so many behaviours and internal states? Because steroids are involved in so many things that orchestrate human physiology, from stress response, sexual function, menstruation, emotional regulation, aggression, physical effort etc etc. You can't call these differences culturally induced, especially when there's evidence that such differences are inborn.

Let's see what a random health site says about normal T levels in both sexes (information based on some textbook references):

Normal testosterone levels in males vary markedly with age. For the first few months after birth, levels range from approximately 70 to 345 ng/dL, then drop to less than 10 ng/dL until age 8 to 10, as measured at Quest Diagnostics laboratories. With the onset of puberty, levels rise gradually through the teen years to as high as 1,000 ng/dL. Normal adult values range from 250 to 1,100 ng/dL, with an individual’s testosterone level dropping slowly within this range beginning sometime after age 30. Different laboratories may have slightly different normal values depending on the test method used.

Testosterone levels in females show a similar but more subdued pattern of age-related changes. Levels are highest the first few months after birth, ranging from approximately 10 to 25 ng/dL. Testosterone then drops to less than 20 ng/dL until the onset of puberty, at which time the hormone increases again to as high as 40 ng/dL. The level then stabilizes as an adult at between 2 and 45 ng/dL.

How is that difference during the first few months after birth the result of anything cultural, norms, expectations, or anything "constructed"? It's a difference between 10 to 25 ng/dL (females) and 70 to 345 ng/dL (males). The ranges are between 7 up to 10 times larger in males, even after a few months of life. And this is just circulating T levels. But there's also T levels that exposed the brain in the mother's womb and those are also highly sexually dimorphic.

In case anyone is losing the context and thinks this debate has strayed too far, let me help you out. It's about bullying and how men and women have a different stress response, different levels of empathy and how this is underpinned by biological differences. Yeah, it's no longer about just Garja, it's about all sorts of things that may cause bullying and different responses to bullying, if you like.

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[deleted_user0]

I never said that cultural norms don't shape how different sexes express their nature. Of course they do and some cultural norms can be crazier than others.

But still, what could cultural norms do to mold these biological facts in any direction?

Steroids influence and control how the brain gets formed and how it works in both infants and adults, right? Can you accept this argument that points to a basic and fundamental sexual difference that controls so many behaviours and internal states? Because steroids are involved in so many things that orchestrate human physiology, from stress response, sexual function, menstruation, emotional regulation, aggression, physical effort etc etc. You can't call these differences culturally induced, especially when there's evidence that such differences are inborn.

Let's see what a random health site says about normal T levels in both sexes (information based on some textbook references):

Normal testosterone levels in males vary markedly with age. For the first few months after birth, levels range from approximately 70 to 345 ng/dL, then drop to less than 10 ng/dL until age 8 to 10, as measured at Quest Diagnostics laboratories. With the onset of puberty, levels rise gradually through the teen years to as high as 1,000 ng/dL. Normal adult values range from 250 to 1,100 ng/dL, with an individual’s testosterone level dropping slowly within this range beginning sometime after age 30. Different laboratories may have slightly different normal values depending on the test method used.

Testosterone levels in females show a similar but more subdued pattern of age-related changes. Levels are highest the first few months after birth, ranging from approximately 10 to 25 ng/dL. Testosterone then drops to less than 20 ng/dL until the onset of puberty, at which time the hormone increases again to as high as 40 ng/dL. The level then stabilizes as an adult at between 2 and 45 ng/dL.

How is that difference during the first few months after birth the result of anything cultural, norms, expectations, or anything "constructed"? It's a difference between 10 to 25 ng/dL (females) and 70 to 345 ng/dL (males). The ranges are between 7 up to 10 times larger in males, even after a few months of life. And this is just circulating T levels. But there's also T levels that exposed the brain in the mother's womb and those are also highly sexually dimorphic.

In case anyone is losing the context and thinks this debate has strayed too far, let me help you out. It's about bullying and how men and women have a different stress response, different levels of empathy and how this is underpinned by biological differences. Yeah, it's no longer about just Garja, it's about all sorts of things that may cause bullying and different responses to bullying, if you like.

No one is disputing that there are differences either. But the conclusions you draw from the science you present are your own, they're not the conclusions of the tests. Yes, there is a difference in testosterone levels, and both men and women need testosterone to regulate their chemical household (interestingly enough, taking the pill chemically castrates women so to speak, as it shuts down their natural testosterone production and amps up estrogen to unnatural levels. Which is most definitely a form of culture changing biology.) Men and women both need estrogen as well. And while we somewhat understand the importance of these chemicals we don't yet totally understand their effect or what the differences in levels really mean and if you can, for ecample, draw a causal line between for example testosteron and aggression. Just showing that there are differences doesnt show what those differences amount to or affect.

[Dolan]

Empathy should be the first step. There is none here.

Ah-huh, again with this self-righteous attitude: I already know the conclusions, there's nothing to discuss, let me just state my higher moral ground. I-have-empathy-and-I'm-implying-you-don't-which-makes-me-the-"the better person" sort of virtue signalling.

Empathy should be the first step to what? And why? Have you even read the arguments exposed here, some of them saying that men and women have different levels of empathy? So what kind of empathy are you talking about? Do you think there is some kind of universal Kumbaya sort of empathy? Jeez, you redditors, I swear, know nothing but to posture as moral heroes, without ever delivering much, unless it's more posturing.

I've discussed sexism at length with people who know what they're talking about.

Did they have a PhD in sexism?

[Dolan]

No one is disputing that there are differences either. But the conclusions you draw from the science you present are your own, they're not the conclusions of the tests. Yes, there is a difference in testosterone levels, and both men and women need testosterone to regulate their chemical household (interestingly enough, taking the pill chemically castrates women so to speak, as it shuts down their natural testosterone production and amps up estrogen to unnatural levels. Which is most definitely a form of culture changing biology.) Men and women both need estrogen as well. And while we somewhat understand the importance of these chemicals we don't yet totally understand their effect or what the differences in levels really mean and if you can, for ecample, draw a causal line between for example testosteron and aggression. Just showing that there are differences doesnt show what those differences amount to or affect.

I don't draw any conclusions, conclusions are open to interpretations. What is clear is that we see some outcomes, some behaviours, right? And these behaviours tend to be very different between sexes. And we see these correlations and a whole body of research which painstakingly builds the case for biological determinism, at least to a significant extent.

The best test case that showcases the systemic effect of hormones is trannies. They take hormone blockers to inhibit their secondary sexual characteristics (pilosity, deep voice) and supplement opposite-sex hormones to help them grow missing secondary sexual features (breasts, pear-shaped fat distribution, etc). If hormones didn't play such an overarching role, why do you think trannies would even take them? They could just, you know, turn into the other sex by socially constructing themselves some boobs.

[Cometk]

sometimes Dolan is right, sometimes Umeu is right, but rest assured, the debate will always be insufferable

[deleted_user0]

No one is disputing that there are differences either. But the conclusions you draw from the science you present are your own, they're not the conclusions of the tests. Yes, there is a difference in testosterone levels, and both men and women need testosterone to regulate their chemical household (interestingly enough, taking the pill chemically castrates women so to speak, as it shuts down their natural testosterone production and amps up estrogen to unnatural levels. Which is most definitely a form of culture changing biology.) Men and women both need estrogen as well. And while we somewhat understand the importance of these chemicals we don't yet totally understand their effect or what the differences in levels really mean and if you can, for ecample, draw a causal line between for example testosteron and aggression. Just showing that there are differences doesnt show what those differences amount to or affect.

I don't draw any conclusions, conclusions are open to interpretations. What is clear is that we see some outcomes, some behaviours, right? And these behaviours tend to be very different between sexes. And we see these correlations and a whole body of research which painstakingly builds the case for biological determinism, at least to a significant extent.

The best test case that showcases the systemic effect of hormones is trannies. They take hormone blockers to inhibit their secondary sexual characteristics (pilosity, deep voice) and supplement opposite-sex hormones to help them grow missing secondary sexual features (breasts, pear-shaped fat distribution, etc). If hormones didn't play such an overarching role, why do you think trannies would even take them? They could just, you know, turn into the other sex by socially constructing themselves some boobs.

Saying that the Money experiment shows that someone born with a penis can't be turned into a woman no matter what is a conclusion in my book. Same is saying that there's significant difference between male/female behaviour or that the body of research indicates is signifcant and indicates biological determinism. But whether you call it a hypothesis, assumption, assertion, statement or implied statement isn't really relevant.

Behaviour is different between sexes. It's even more different between individuals. None of these statements show what the cause of the differences is. The reason we "see" a host of research pointing in the direction of biological determinism is because you posted only that research and have dismissed other types of research which doesnt fit your world view as myers briggs hocus pocus. To me it seems clear that we don't know nearly enough to even come near the conclusions (or whatever you want to call it) you draw.

Hormones definitely have an effect, the effects you mention are all physical though. They take these hormones not to alter their gender, but to match their physique to the what they claim their gender is. Not all transgenders (which you feel the need to disrespectfully call trannies, perhaps think about why you always feeo the need to disrespect those who are different to you) take hormones or surgery and still claim gender opposite to what the tradition would apply to them. There could be many reasons for wanting to do this. For example, wanting to feel more accepted as people are less likely to question you wearig a dress if you have boobs, perhaps. Again, your example doesn't support what you're trying to assert, namely that hormones necessarily determine ones gender, even if it may determine certain expressions or traits that we associate with certain genders. I'm not saying that youre wrong, as you might be right or close to the truth. But we simply don't know. We do know that some people claim that their body doesn't match their psychology, and that people have been feeling like this way before all this "woke" hippie 60's bs as you like to call it.

[Dolan]

@Cometk
There's a funny Romanian singer-songwriter (Ada Milea) who wrote this verse:

"I don't have any opinions anymore, 'cause I smeared honey on all of them."

[007Salt]

How many times do we have to have the oh men have higher testosterone so men are better than women debate lol what nonsense

[deleted_user0]

Theres no causal relation between expressions of masculinity and testosterone levels (though obviously men have more than women, "effeminite or trans" men don't have less than "masculine" men).

But its not about better or not, at least dolan didnt give me that impression. Its definitely legit to question as he does, i just dont agree with his "conclusions".

[JaZzer_2401]

Vicky doing the Lina. Thats gotta be fun.

What does this suppose to mean?

[Vickyxxx5528]

Vicky doing the Lina. Thats gotta be fun.

What does this suppose to mean?

Properly some sort of insult.

[Method_man714]

Like I get that it's a touchy subject but why do we have to get personal talking about haircuts and shit

That's true and I rarely resort to personal attacks, but that's because he used a psychological trick, he tried to make me look as if I'm some kind of socially undesirable guy. That's why he said "I'm glad you didn't come at the LAN". That's what he was trying to imply, which is just a sneaky kind of personal attack. Humans can be so subtle at this sort of things. Such as by using this "wolf pack" argument: I'm part of the pack (I was at the LAN event), you're not, so my buddies will support me, which makes you weird.

But it won't work on me, because I'm no regular Joe. I can read this sort of tricks.

What the actual hell are you talking about? You got so many problems I don't know where to begin. What he meant by being glad you wasnt there is because your absolutely unbearable online so imagine how unbearable you would be irl. Stop making yourself look like a victim and grow up.