Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:01 am Gender ... If it's a 'social construct' then how can anyone be the 'wrong gender'??
One of the great mysteries of the day.

Alas, you won't get an answer from the idiots who believe that nonsense.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:55 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:01 am Gender ... If it's a 'social construct' then how can anyone be the 'wrong gender'??
One of the great mysteries of the day.

Alas, you won't get an answer from the idiots who believe that nonsense.
Talking about butchering the language, how's this? They is an American actor (why are so many American actors 'theys' (since it became fashionable)?). They is a wanker.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by mickthinks »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:55 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:01 am Gender ... If it's a 'social construct' then how can anyone be the 'wrong gender'??
One of the great mysteries of the day.
It's only mysterious if you mistakenly believe that social constructs can always be ignored or dispensed with unilaterally without deleterious and painful consequences. Why would anyone believe that, though?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

mickthinks wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:00 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:55 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:01 am Gender ... If it's a 'social construct' then how can anyone be the 'wrong gender'??
One of the great mysteries of the day.
It's only mysterious if you mistakenly believe that social constructs can always be ignored or dispensed with unilaterally without deleterious and painful consequences. Why would anyone believe that, though?
I ignore all so-called, "social constructs," with nothing but benevolent results. There is something psychologically wrong with allowing one's beliefs and values to be determined by what is popular among the ignorant masses.

Only someone who refuses, or is unable, to think for themselves, gives a damn what, "society," or others think, believe, and do. Its much easier just accept whatever one is taught and what everyone else believes and does than to do the hard work of using one's own mind to learn, think, and understand what is actually true, which is why so many fall for the, "social construct," lie.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by uwot »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmI ignore all so-called, "social constructs," with nothing but benevolent results.
You're using one now. Language is a social construct; if we didn't agree broadly on how to use it, communication would be very limited.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmThere is something psychologically wrong with allowing one's beliefs and values to be determined by what is popular among the ignorant masses.
Yes, it's called conservatism.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmOnly someone who refuses, or is unable, to think for themselves, gives a damn what, "society," or others think, believe, and do.
Well, it's worth understanding what makes other people tick. It helps if you need to get out of the way when they do something crazy.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmIts much easier just accept whatever one is taught and what everyone else believes and does than to do the hard work of using one's own mind to learn, think, and understand what is actually true, which is why so many fall for the, "social construct," lie.
What we're talking about here is the social expectations of how people with testes should behave in contrast to those with ovaries. Oblivious to irony, it is generally the conservatives that bleat loudest about freedom and choice, who are most upset when individuals don't behave according to conservative social constructs. The idea that people should just be whatever they wish to be is antithetical to their conservative views.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmI ignore all so-called, "social constructs," with nothing but benevolent results.
You're using one now. Language is a social construct; if we didn't agree broadly on how to use it, communication would be very limited.
That's a lot of mistakes for two sentences. To call language a, "social construct," is a bit disingenuous. You know that is not what is meant by the post-modernist concept of, "social construct." If you are going to call just anything human beings have invented a, "social construct," then you'll have to include mathematics, logic, science, history, etc. The term becomes meaningless. I think you are also confused about the purpose of language. The primary purpose of language is to hold knowledge in the form of concepts. Communication is not the primary purpose of language. One must know something before they can communicate it.
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmThere is something psychologically wrong with allowing one's beliefs and values to be determined by what is popular among the ignorant masses.
Yes, it's called conservatism.
No, it is called superstition. Conservatism is just one among many such superstitions along with all other, "-isms," religions, and ideologies.
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmOnly someone who refuses, or is unable, to think for themselves, gives a damn what, "society," or others think, believe, and do.
Well, it's worth understanding what makes other people tick. It helps if you need to get out of the way when they do something crazy.
Sure.
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmIts much easier to just accept whatever one is taught and what everyone else believes and does than to do the hard work of using one's own mind to learn, think, and understand what is actually true, which is why so many fall for the, "social construct," lie.
What we're talking about here is the social expectations of how people with testes should behave in contrast to those with ovaries. Oblivious to irony, it is generally the conservatives that bleat loudest about freedom and choice, who are most upset when individuals don't behave according to conservative social constructs. The idea that people should just be whatever they wish to be is antithetical to their conservative views.
What difference does it make what some people, like, "conservatives," think? There is no shortage of idiots in this world.* Are they something special to you? Are they worse, in your view, than Muslims, anarchists, or Catholics, for example? (You certainly do not have to answer that question. I'm not interested in your personal views, just curious about the emphasis.)
* The costliest of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpable not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. -- H.L. Mencken
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by uwot »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmI ignore all so-called, "social constructs," with nothing but benevolent results.
You're using one now. Language is a social construct; if we didn't agree broadly on how to use it, communication would be very limited.
That's a lot of mistakes for two sentences. To call language a, "social construct," is a bit disingenuous. You know that is not what is meant by the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."
Well no; for current purposes, I have to understand what you mean by "the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."". The whole point of post-modern philosophy, as I understand it, is an acknowledgement that no interpretation of data has a privileged claim to truth. Some are better, some are worse, but there are never less than two alternative explanations.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmIf you are going to call just anything human beings have invented a, "social construct," then you'll have to include mathematics, logic, science, history, etc. The term becomes meaningless.
Yes.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmI think you are also confused about the purpose of language. The primary purpose of language is to hold knowledge in the form of concepts.
I don't think that is why our ancestors began communicating. You could make a case for writing, but language comes a lot sooner.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmCommunication is not the primary purpose of language. One must know something before they can communicate it.
Are joy, love, lust, hunger, fear, anger conceptual? If we are anything like animals, and I suggest we are, those will be the primary purpose of language.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmWhat difference does it make what some people, like, "conservatives," think? There is no shortage of idiots in this world.* Are they something special to you? Are they worse, in your view, than Muslims, anarchists, or Catholics, for example? (You certainly do not have to answer that question. I'm not interested in your personal views, just curious about the emphasis.)
Well, since you didn't ask for my opinion, I'll tell you anyway: Muslims, anarchists, or Catholics, for example are all perfectly capable of being conservative, Marxists too, for that matter. One facet of conservatism, with a small c, is defence of any doctrine as it becomes increasingly indefensible.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pm
The costliest of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpable not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. -- H.L. Mencken
Indeed.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by mickthinks »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmYou know that is not what is meant by the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."
I can't speak for uwot, but I certainly know no such thing: "To say of something that it is socially constructed is to emphasize its dependence on contingent aspects of our social selves. It is to say: This thing could not have existed had we not built it; and we need not have built it at all, at least not in its present form. Had we been a different kind of society, had we had different needs, values, or interests, we might well have built a different kind of thing, or built this one differently." https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/p ... uction.pdf

Where do you get your definition of "social construct: posr-modernist version" from? Would you be willing to share it with us?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm What we're talking about here is the social expectations of how people with testes should behave in contrast to those with ovaries. Oblivious to irony, it is generally the conservatives that bleat loudest about freedom and choice, who are most upset when individuals don't behave according to conservative social constructs. The idea that people should just be whatever they wish to be is antithetical to their conservative views.
Exactly. And that's exactly what these imbeciles are perpetuating. THEY are the ones reinforcing stereotypes. When women decide that they 'are' a man, what do they do to turn this into reality? They take hormones and adopt mannerisms that make themselves 'appear more masculine'. Now why would they bother to do that, when there's no such thing as 'masculine' or 'feminine'? God, this is giving me a headache.
So which little political box are you putting me in then? Wow. I'm so 'conservative'. Hmm. Always voted Labour and sometimes Green (although they are pretty useless in this country). Always been anti war. Loathe religion. Can't stand so-called 'libertarians'. Despise so-called 'neo-liberals'. Love logic and reason. Love scientific evidence.

Messing up immature brains with self-serving political bullshit is a recipe for disaster. No wonder the suicide rate for the young is through the roof.

Men can dress as they like and look as ridiculous as they want to with their huge hands and big feet in silly, uncomfortable heels (which, incidentally, I don't wear so I suppose that means I'm really a man :? But as there's no such thing as a man then it's a moot point...aaagh!! ); just don't expect me to recognise you as a woman. Do your thing by all means, but keep children out of it, and don't demand that the rest of society pander to you.

If you have a womb then you are a woman. Good luck with that. That's what the word literally means (despite the desperate attempts by woke online 'experts' to claim otherwise). Hmm. Which word looks more like it evolved into 'woman'. Wamb or wif? Gee. That's a hard one...
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm You're using one now. Language is a social construct; if we didn't agree broadly on how to use it, communication would be very limited.
That's a lot of mistakes for two sentences. To call language a, "social construct," is a bit disingenuous. You know that is not what is meant by the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."
Well no; for current purposes, I have to understand what you mean by "the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."". The whole point of post-modern philosophy, as I understand it, is an acknowledgement that no interpretation of data has a privileged claim to truth. Some are better, some are worse, but there are never less than two alternative explanations.
Since I regard every explanation of what is supposed to be a, "social construct," so much nonsense, like everything else spawned in critical theory and PM, use whatever definition you like.

That, "... there are never less than two alternative explanations...," does put the finger on one of the main reasons all philosophy, not just post modernism, is a totally failed discipline. After Aristotle it has all been downhill (with the exception of Abelard and a bit of Locke). It is apparently no longer true that an existent cannot be both A and not A, nothing is true, and no certain knowledge is possible. Give up!
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmIf you are going to call just anything human beings have invented a, "social construct," then you'll have to include mathematics, logic, science, history, etc. The term becomes meaningless.
Yes.
'Yes," what? "Social construct is a meaningless phrase," or, "every human invention is a, social construct," or, "both?" Just not sure which your, "yes," pertained to.
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmI think you are also confused about the purpose of language. The primary purpose of language is to hold knowledge in the form of concepts.
I don't think that is why our ancestors began communicating. You could make a case for writing, but language comes a lot sooner.
Just how did our "early ancestors," (as if anyone actually knows anything about what they did beyond wild conjecture) manage to, "communicate," without any consciousness of what they wanted to communicate or choosing some method of doing so? Even if they only used grunts and growls, if the grunt meant nothing to the grunter, how did it mean anything to the hearer?
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmCommunication is not the primary purpose of language. One must know something before they can communicate it.
Are joy, love, lust, hunger, fear, anger conceptual?
The experiences are emotions. To talk about them we have concepts that identify them, but joy, love, lust, hunger, fear, and anger are certainly hot concepts themselves, any more than coffee (the actual drink) is not a concept, but we identify it with the concept, "coffee," just as we identify the feelings with concepts represented by the same words.
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pm If we are anything like animals, and I suggest we are, those will be the primary purpose of language.
Human beings are only like animals biologically. Psychologically they are totally unique. Human beings must consciously choose their behavior, animals cannot, which is why they have instinct to determine their behavior. We are talking about language (supposedly a social construct), not expressions of feelings. Language is the unique human method of holding and using knowledge to think (intellect and reason) and also communicating what they know and think (a secondary function of language.) I can, like my animals, express feelings and emotions without language, as my wife can attest, but neither my animals, nor I can tell you what they are or anything about them without language. (And neither could any so-called ancient ancestors.)
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pm Well, since you didn't ask for my opinion, I'll tell you anyway: Muslims, anarchists, or Catholics, for example are all perfectly capable of being conservative, Marxists too, for that matter. One facet of conservatism, with a small c, is defence of any doctrine as it becomes increasingly indefensible.
That is an interesting way of identifying conservatism. It's not what I think is usually meant, but confess I do not have enough interest in politics to analyze the endless shades of political idologies out there.

From what I observe, in the United States, those who identify themselves as, "conservative," are usually Christians (at least nominally), believe in and support "constitutional government," "free markets," "free speech," and, "property rights," regard supporting government and voting a duty, equate, "law-abiding," with morality or virtue, believe abortion ought to be prohibited by law but still claim to believe in individual freedom and rights, are pro-American military and believe in solving problems using military intervention, and regard their views as truly American, and everything else as anti-American. There are other variations.

It's a terribly mixed bag of contradictions, but almost all ideologies are. I think there are worse ones.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

mickthinks wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 7:28 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmYou know that is not what is meant by the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."
I can't speak for uwot, but I certainly know no such thing: "To say of something that it is socially constructed is to emphasize its dependence on contingent aspects of our social selves. It is to say: This thing could not have existed had we not built it; and we need not have built it at all, at least not in its present form. Had we been a different kind of society, had we had different needs, values, or interests, we might well have built a different kind of thing, or built this one differently." https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/p ... uction.pdf

Where do you get your definition of "social construct: posr-modernist version" from? Would you be willing to share it with us?
As I wrote to uwot:
Since I regard every explanation of what is supposed to be a, "social construct," so much nonsense, like everything else spawned in critical theory and PM, use whatever definition you like.
It's a made-up concept constructed of nonsense like, "contingent aspects of our social selves," invented by idiots. Your view of society is correct for at least 90% of humanity who, no doubt, are unable, or refuse, to think for themselves, and whose every idea is learned from others and every act is copied from those around them.

Mencken was right:
So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots.
The average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of cliches. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over 80 percent of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought.
"Social constructs," only pertain to idiots who do not use their own minds, to learn, think, and work to make something of their own lives. The coasters and second-handers who have to belong to some gang to find any value in life or themselves--parasites.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm What we're talking about here is the social expectations of how people with testes should behave in contrast to those with ovaries. Oblivious to irony, it is generally the conservatives that bleat loudest about freedom and choice, who are most upset when individuals don't behave according to conservative social constructs. The idea that people should just be whatever they wish to be is antithetical to their conservative views.
What I'm talking about here is mentally disturbed children being made responsible for their own care; as a consequence of a legal action that alleged the NHS acted irresponsibly in handing out puberty blockers to children on the basis of two or three - hour long consultations. This is from a doctor at GIDS explaining his decision to quit.

Why I Resigned from Tavistock: Trans-Identified Children Need Therapy, Not Just 'Affirmation' and Drugs
Dr Marcus Evans
17 Jan 2020
https://quillette.com/2020/01/17/why-i- ... and-drugs/

The problem is compounded by left wing teachers pumping kids full of politically correct post modernist nonsense, taking drag queens into schools, encouraging boys to wear skirts, telling kids there are 99 genders.

Teenage boys wear skirts to school to protest against 'no shorts' policy
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... orm-policy

Mhairi Black defends Paisley primary school after drag queen called Flowjob visits P1 kids
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5 ... rag-queen/

BBC education film that claims there are 'more than 100 gender identities' is blasted as 'nonsense' and accused of 'confusing' primary school children
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... sense.html

The problem with political correctness is that no-one can disagree, or else:

Speaker condemns threats to MPs as Rosie Duffield skips Labour conference in trans rights row
‘LGBT+ Labour now seem to hate my guts’ says MP
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 22772.html

I am at an absolute loss to explain the High Courts decision to allow these people to continue, causing permanent damage to children.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:50 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm What we're talking about here is the social expectations of how people with testes should behave in contrast to those with ovaries. Oblivious to irony, it is generally the conservatives that bleat loudest about freedom and choice, who are most upset when individuals don't behave according to conservative social constructs. The idea that people should just be whatever they wish to be is antithetical to their conservative views.
What I'm talking about here is mentally disturbed children being made responsible for their own care; as a consequence of a legal action that alleged the NHS acted irresponsibly in handing out puberty blockers to children on the basis of two or three - hour long consultations. This is from a doctor at GIDS explaining his decision to quit.

Why I Resigned from Tavistock: Trans-Identified Children Need Therapy, Not Just 'Affirmation' and Drugs
Dr Marcus Evans
17 Jan 2020
https://quillette.com/2020/01/17/why-i- ... and-drugs/

The problem is compounded by left wing teachers pumping kids full of politically correct post modernist nonsense, taking drag queens into schools, encouraging boys to wear skirts, telling kids there are 99 genders.

Teenage boys wear skirts to school to protest against 'no shorts' policy
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... orm-policy

Mhairi Black defends Paisley primary school after drag queen called Flowjob visits P1 kids
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5 ... rag-queen/

BBC education film that claims there are 'more than 100 gender identities' is blasted as 'nonsense' and accused of 'confusing' primary school children
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... sense.html

The problem with political correctness is that no-one can disagree, or else:

Speaker condemns threats to MPs as Rosie Duffield skips Labour conference in trans rights row
‘LGBT+ Labour now seem to hate my guts’ says MP
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 22772.html

I am at an absolute loss to explain the High Courts decision to allow these people to continue, causing permanent damage to children.
You have to wonder why so-called 'blackface' is treated with much outraged wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention of it, yet drag queens are an offensive and often misogynistic caricature of women (even though there is apparently no such thing as women) and they are beloved by wokedom all over the world. A bit of consistency...dears....
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:09 pm You have to wonder why so-called 'blackface' is treated with much outraged wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention of it, yet drag queens are an offensive and often misogynistic caricature of women (even though there is apparently no such thing as women) and they are beloved by wokedom all over the world. A bit of consistency...dears....
I've often thought that drag queens are misogynistic; but when you get blokes in frocks robbing female athletes, it's a blatant fuck you to women.
Look at the size of this geezher!

Image
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:27 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:09 pm You have to wonder why so-called 'blackface' is treated with much outraged wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention of it, yet drag queens are an offensive and often misogynistic caricature of women (even though there is apparently no such thing as women) and they are beloved by wokedom all over the world. A bit of consistency...dears....
I've often thought that drag queens are misogynistic; but when you get blokes in frocks robbing female athletes, it's a blatant fuck you to women.
Look at the size of this geezher!

Image
A chance to cavort with and 'man'handle women. What more could a 'man' want?
Post Reply