Weird

Chad had learned the traditional masculine characteristics of our fathers and other men in cities across rural Canada: ill-equipped to handle (let alone display) emotion, unable to properly cope with psychological stress, and prone to view any form of vulnerability as weakness. Stoicism and anger were the primary emotions: great when facing death or danger, but crippling in everyday life; excellent on the hockey rink, but useless for navigating the rest of the 21st century.

Stoicism sounds like an excellent method of dealing with things, no?

131 comments on “Weird

  1. Probably for the Canadian forests, yes. But most Canadians live in cities, not forests.
    Different environment. Stoicism in the cities will get you sidelined & ignored. In cities, the best policy is to emote at every opportunity, go into emotional collapse at every setback & generally act like girl’s blouse. People will then seek to accommodate you at every turn & give in to your scantiest desire. You might even become PM

  2. According to Statistics Canada, suicide is one of the top three leading causes of death for Canadian men aged 15 to 44.

    One of the top three! So third then. I notice it is not third for Canadian men aged 45 or older. Which suggests to me that since Canadian boys were first taught to be faggots[1], the roughly 44 and under demographic, Canadian faggots have lacked the backbone to deal with life and so said Canadian faggots have killed themselves in larger numbers.

    And also come to expect a wonderful career rather than a job that pays the bills.

    [1] For a non-homophobic definition of faggot.

    “On average, across the country, 50 men a week take their own life, and the male suicide rate is three times higher for men than women.”

    50 men a week? That would be about 250 a year then? In a country of 30 million. National crisis, clearly.

  3. “Stoicism sounds like an excellent method of dealing with things, no?”

    Not to Guardian-reading wanks obviously.

  4. Stoicism and anger were the primary emotions: great when facing death or danger, but crippling in everyday life

    Actually there is ample evidence that Stoicism is the best approach to a whole range of trauma – including quite a few psychological problems. Or at least being a complete girl’s blouse about it all seems to make things worse:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-186286/Counselling-makes-pain-worse-victims.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/mar/11/mentalhealth.healthandwellbeing

    Incidentally any ten year old that was abducted and raped almost certainly would have suffered injuries requiring medical attention so anyone who has a therapist who says otherwise is getting ripped off.

    Some how a generation of Britons survive the Somme and then their children survived D-Day. But somewhere along the way their great-great-grandchildren discovered they could not handle their second favorite barista getting their order wrong and giving them a semi-skimmed soy de-caf latte instead of a skimmed organic-soy quasi-caf latte.

  5. “Why be stoic when you can ululate?”

    Or, nowadays:

    Why be stoic when you can ovulate?

    I think I can feel it starting today. I’m male, but that doesn’t count these days, right?

  6. ‘Some how a generation of Britons survive the Somme and then their children survived D-Day. But somewhere along the way their great-great-grandchildren discovered they could not handle their second favorite barista getting their order wrong and giving them a semi-skimmed soy de-caf latte instead of a skimmed organic-soy quasi-caf latte.’

    Brilliant from the great SMFS. How they will react under Islamic fundamentalist rule when the various adherents of abnormal sexual practices meet their grisly end dangling from a rope is beyond imagination.

  7. It looks like the gem merchants have moved on from TRUK – slim pickings today although you might want to look at his post on the fact the BOE should not be allowed to thwart his potential control of fiscal policy.

    ‘But what’s also true is that you can’t set productivity gain as one short term goal and still maintain conventional monetary policy as another goal. They will sometimes run counter to each other with one demanding low rates and the other increases. That conflict is almost inevitable.

    Labour will have to decide. It has to put monetary or fiscal goal at the heart of policy making. It can’t do both. But if it is a fiscal goal then the Bank has no role to play. And since monetary policy in the U.K. is now entirely secondary because there have been almost no rate changes in a decade, and none are likely unless Carney & Co are trying to bring forward the date of the next downturn, only fiscal policy now makes sense. In which case the Bank should, once more, become just a banking sector regulator.

    That’s a big job. But it is not core to macroeconomic policy, and nor should the Bank be anywhere near that in the future.’

    Would be interested to see what you make of his post related to VAT or on the book ‘debunking myths’ which he suggests might become the title of his fifth book ‘Debunking myths about money’ which of course I look forward to reading…..

  8. Yes, it’s why men won’t ask for directions when they’re lost. Or admit they’re lost. They’ll drive around for hours in the hopes of seeing a familiar landmark, rather than show their vulnerability and dependence by ‘asking someone for help!’

    Then they’ll virtue-signal to one another in the bar later about how stoical they were about it all, and about their girlfriend constantly yammering on every few minutes throughout the entire episode saying things like “Why don’t you just %&*$!! ask someone!” and “Men!”, distracting you from the skilled and competent way you escaped the one way system in less than a week by hunting for rodents and drinking your own urine, totally like Bear Grylls trapped on an island populated by hostile, emotionally incontinent savages. The ungrateful wretches that surround you just don’t appreciate you, or the skill and steely strength with which you saved them from emotional breakdown. You’re a hero.

  9. I’m shocked to see NIV completely misunderstand Stoicism, almost as much as I’m shocked to see a woman misunderstand it.

  10. So Much For Subtlety said:
    “Some how a generation of Britons survive the Somme and then their children survived D-Day.”

    Well, most of them did; some couldn’t cope and it drove some of them mad. See Spike Milligan’s books, if nothing else.

    It’s just that these days it seems it’s the ones who went mad who are regarded as the heroes, and the ones who coped who are regarded as having psychological problems.

  11. After you knock off most infectious diseases, have the facilities to make giving birth a relatively safe experience and cure most cases of leukemia, then the main candidates for mortality among young’uns of all genders are going to be along the lines of traffic accidents, violent crime and suicide/self-harm … and if cars become safer, then it is going to push suicide further up the list. I’d be surprised if accidents, homicide and suicide/self-harm aren’t the top three causes of young adult death in any developed country.

    The 2015 US data for 20-24 year olds shows they die from accidents/unintentional injuries (death rate 37.8 per 100,000), intentional self-harm/suicide (9.8) and assault/homicide (7.5). The drop-off after this is huge – those are followed by malignant neoplasm (2.8), diseases of the heart (1.4) and congenital malformations/chromosomal abnormalities (0.9), then everything else is 0.3 per 100,000 or below. Of course it depends how you categorise and what what causes you lump together. The top three accounted for 74.3% of deaths in that age group, the next three for a further 10.6% and everything after that is below 1%, starting with influenza/pneumonia at 0.7% of deaths and a death rate of 0.3.

    I’m sure figures differ elsewhere (e.g. accidents, suicides and homicides in America are both affected by firearms, Americans drive further than many other countries which influences car accident rates) and may be collated quite differently, but there just aren’t many other candidates for stuff to kill youngsters.

    If you look at, say, 55-64 year-olds, suicide occurs at about double the rate (18.9 per 100,000) but now is only the 8th highest cause and makes up only 2.2% of deaths, compared to 15.1% for 20-24 year-olds. But that’s because by that age malignant neoplasms and heart disease have death rates of 284.1 and 188.1 respectively, which puts young people’s problems into perspective – at 32.5% and 21.5% of deaths, they cover more than half of deaths between them. The death rate from accidents is 47.7, the third-highest cause, but while broadly similar to the 37.8 for 20-24 year-olds now only 5.4% of deaths instead of 42.3% among the young.

    All told I’d rather be young than old.

  12. “I’m shocked to see NIV completely misunderstand Stoicism, almost as much as I’m shocked to see a woman misunderstand it.”

    🙂

    Well, you’ve got to say that, haven’t you?

    “Asking for directions implies you actually want to get there.”

    And you’re not about to admit to being so needy, are you?
    🙂

  13. Also from the US data for 20-24 year-olds:

    Males have a death rate of 129.9 per 100,000.
    Top six: accidents (rate 55.0, 42.3% of deaths), suicide (24.2, 18.6%), homicide (23.7, 18.2%), malignant neoplasms (4.6, 3.5%), heart disease (4.0, 3.1%), congenital malformations/chromosomal abnormalities (1.0, 0.7%).

    Females have a death rate of 46.5 per 100,000 – some 64% lower than males.
    Top seven: accidents (19.7, 42.4%), suicide (5.5, 11.8%), homicide (3.5, 7.5%), malignant neoplasms (3.2, 6.8%), heart disease (2.0, 4.3%), pregnancy/childbirth-related (1.1, 2.3%), malformations/chromosomal abnormalities (0.7, 1.6%).

    Similar causes, other than pregnancy, but at very different rates.

    When you see figures like that, you do wonder why outraged men’s rights groups aren’t a bigger thing…

  14. And to summarise the article.

    “All my friends topped themselves. There must have been some other common factor.

  15. MyBurningEars said:
    “When you see figures like that, you do wonder why outraged men’s rights groups aren’t a bigger thing…”

    Because we’re stoical rather than emotionally incontinent?

  16. I was impressed with the way the article managed to make the the fault of The Patriarchy…

    You’d have thought that with it being The Patriarchy and all, we’d have been spending shitloads to ensure that suicide wasn’t a leading cause of death of younger men.

  17. On a slightly different note, there was a programme on BBC R4 last week details the effects of the Grenfell fire on the psyche of young children and what was being done in schools to help the kids cope with the grief etc.

    They interviewed two female teachers, neither of whom were able to get through the interview without trembly bottom lips and clearly being close to tears. My first reaction was, no wonder the kids need help if that’s their prime example, the first step might be to provide stoicism training.

  18. RichardT: “It’s just that these days it seems it’s the ones who went mad who are regarded as the heroes, and the ones who coped who are regarded as having psychological problems.”

    Spot on!

  19. Steve Crook: “…the effects of the Grenfell fire on the psyche of young children and what was being done in schools to help the kids cope with the grief …”

    No wonder the readin’, writin’ & rithmatic is so poor. When do schools have time for such mundane stuff, when there’s parenting to do instead?

  20. “Jeff Conners, a Kamloops-based counsellor who focuses on men’s mental health, …. said the important thing is to make sure the push to get guys to address their feelings isn’t cast as a war against the other sex. He noted 80% of men in Canada want to become fathers, and are at risk of passing on negative archetypes of masculinity down to their sons.

    “I’ve always seen this as an allied approach – we need to do this with women,” he said. “This isn’t men against women. One of the first things I did when I started focusing on men’s mental health issues is I went to the women’s resource centre and I said, ‘Look, I’m not against you. This isn’t ‘men’s rights’. I just want healthy men, and I want healthy kids and I want healthy communities.’””

    I think Jeff Connors must be NiV…

  21. The Guardian:
    ” White men are responsible for all the evil in the world and must be destroyed!”

    Also The Guardian:
    ” Why are white men killing themselves?”

  22. What’s the suicide rate for trannies then?

    I’m going to take a wild guess that it is higher than for other men, but fairly well in line with other people suffering from a mental illness.

  23. I’ve been to Kamloops. If you take the Rocky Mountaineer from Vancouver (temperate rainforest) to Banff (Canadian Rockies), you will spend a night in Kamloops (serious prairie). It is in the middle of nowhere, and as such, it takes a certain type of person to thrive in that environment… much as it takes a certain type of person to thrive in some of the bleaker parts of Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming.

    In those environments, hardiness (masculinity, if you like) tends to be a virtue. Punish masculinity and what you get is a generation of young men engaging in maladaptive behaviors… largely because most of the proven strategies for coping/surviving have been declared to be regressive and hateful.

    Sow the wind, Guardian readers, and you reap the whirlwind.

  24. Jeff Conners, a Kamloops-based counsellor who focuses on men’s mental health, …. said the important thing is to make sure the push to get guys to address their feelings isn’t cast as a war against the other sex. He noted 80% of men in Canada want to become fathers, and are at risk of passing on negative archetypes of masculinity down to their sons.

    This cunt constitutes “the help” that young Kamloops men are receiving and Patrick Blennerhassett can’t figure out why these same young men are killing themselves. Well, if nothing else, Patrick’s proved he’s dumb enough to thrive as a writer for The Guardian.

  25. “Because we’re stoical rather than emotionally incontinent?”

    Exactly.

    “You’d have thought that with it being The Patriarchy and all, we’d have been spending shitloads to ensure that suicide wasn’t a leading cause of death of younger men.”

    You’d have thought, wouldn’t you?

    “I think Jeff Connors must be NiV…”

    I’m not against it. The male adolescent “macho” culture is just another culture, just as worthy of respect and open to criticism as any other. I’m not in favour of stopping it or banning it. I just find it funny, watching it in action!

    “I’m going to take a wild guess that it is higher than for other men, but fairly well in line with other people suffering from a mental illness.”

    And people accuse *me* of being obsessed with the subject, and constantly bringing it up! 🙂

    Suicide is associated with an intense social pressure to conform to standards that the person is unable to meet, combined with sociallly-driven feelings of self-disgust for not meeting those standards, combined with a total lack of support from society, and indeed hostility for the idea of even seeking it.

    People who are bullied and socially isolated have a much higher suicide rate. So do people in prison. Or whose families die so they are left alone. Fat people. Ugly people. Socially inept people. The mentally ill, yes, who face a lot of stigma and often get no support or understanding. And, as we were discussing, men do too.

    As I’ve mentioned before (so you damn well ought to already know this), TGs have a very high attempted suicide rate that is strongly correlated with the support and acceptance they get from society. It rises up to 70% for those who are routinely bullied, assaulted, and persecuted. It drops to 30% or below for those who get more support from family and friends. TGs commit suicide primarily because of the way society treats them.

    The best outcome follows from getting strong emotional support from society. If that support is not forthcoming, then stoicism is indeed a better and healthier option than weeping and wailing. Men are not built to seek that emotional support, though. They’re evolved to compete violently with one another, to form alliances based on the show of strength, and showing weakness is more likely to be exploited by rivals. It has it’s advantages, in the short term, but it also makes men vulnerable, and leaves them isolated. Men die younger than women – by certain measures, they’re weaker. It’s just the way things are.

    Everything’s a trade-off. You get advantages and disadvantages from any strategy. It all depends on what your aim is. But it’s your choice.

  26. Jeff Conners, a Kamloops-based counsellor who focuses on men’s mental health, …. said the important thing is to make sure the push to get guys to address their feelings isn’t cast as a war against the other sex. He noted 80% of men in Canada want to become fathers, and are at risk of passing on negative archetypes of masculinity down to their sons.

    And there was me thinking this was about the suicide rate among men. Fancy my surprise when it turned out to be another loony Progressive political battleground!

  27. “And there was me thinking this was about the suicide rate among men.”

    It *is* about the high suicide rate among men. The culture causes the suicides.

    But so long as men have a choice about it, and understand the consequences, they should be free to keep hold of their culture. The price for it is a high suicide rate. But it’s your life – you should be free to pay that price.

    It’s like smoking. There’s no doubt whasoever that smoking causes cancer, but that’s not a good reason to ban smoking, or to ban parents passing the habit down to their children.

  28. @Rob: “Fancy my surprise when it turned out to be another loony Progressive political battleground!”

    Everything, every fucking thing in the universe, is a loony Progressive political battleground.

    We’ll never have peace with them so make sure you are prepared for a forever war.

  29. One thing; amidst this noise of fucktards bleating about toxic masculinity, is there any actual evidence that bed-wetting, lip-wobbling, cry-wanking soyboys commit suicide at a lower rate than normal men?

  30. It *is* about the high suicide rate among men. The culture causes the suicides.

    You don’t know that. Much less that the changes to the culture that you’re advocating will cause fewer suicides.

  31. “One thing; amidst this noise of fucktards bleating about toxic masculinity, is there any actual evidence that bed-wetting, lip-wobbling, cry-wanking soyboys commit suicide at a lower rate than normal men?”

    Some. Although I’ve never noticed you guys to pay any attention to evidence before (which may be a symptom, of course…), so I’m putting this up mainly for the amusement value, to see how you go about dismissing/ignoring/rejecting it. Have fun!

    Galdas PM, Cheater F, Marshall P. Men and health help-seeking behaviour: literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;49(6):616–623. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03331.x.
    Möller-Leimkühler AM. Barriers to help-seeking by men: a review of sociocultural and clinical literature with particular reference to depression. J Affect Disord. 2002;71(1-3):1–9.
    Emslie C, Ridge D, Ziebland S, Hunt K. Men’s accounts of depression: reconstructing or resisting hegemonic masculinity? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(9):2246–2257. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.017.
    Goldney RD, Fisher LJ, Wilson DH, Cheok F. Mental health literacy of those with major depression and suicidal ideation: an impediment to help seeking. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2002;32(4):394–403.
    Bruffaerts R, Demyttenaere K, Hwang I, Chiu WT, Sampson N, Kessler RC, Alonso J, Borges G, de Girolamo G, de Graaf R, Florescu S, Gureje O, Hu C, Karam EG, Kawakami N, Kostyuchenko S, Kovess-Masfety V, Lee S, Levinson D, Matschinger H, Posada-Villa J, Sagar R, Scott KM, Stein DJ, Tomov T, Viana MC, Nock MK. Treatment of suicidal people around the world. Br J Psychiatry. 2011 Jul;199(1):64–70. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.084129. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=21263012. [PMC free article]
    Wilson C, Deane F. Help-negation and suicidal ideation: the role of depression, anxiety and hopelessness. J Youth Adolesc. 2010;39(3):291–305. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9487-8.
    Pirkis J, Spittal MJ, Keogh L, Mousaferiadis T, Currier D. Masculinity and suicidal thinking. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017;52(3):319–327. doi: 10.1007/s00127-016-1324-2.
    Thompson EH, Pleck JH. Masculinity ideologies: a review of research instrumentation on men and masculinities. In: Levant R, Pollack W, editors. A New Psychology of Men. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1995. pp. 129–163.
    Rice S, Fallon B, Bambling M. Men and depression: the impact of masculine role norms throughout the lifespan. Aust Educ Dev Psychol. 2012 Mar 27;28(2):133–144. doi: 10.1375/aedp.28.2.133.
    Boman EK, Walker GA. Predictors of men’s health care utilization. Psychol Men Masc. 2010;11(2):113–122. doi: 10.1037/a0018461.
    Nam SK, Chu HJ, Lee MK, Lee JH, Kim N, Lee S. A meta-analysis of gender differences in attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help. J Am Coll Health. 2010;59(2):110–116. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2010.483714.
    Coleman D. Traditional masculinity as a risk factor for suicidal ideation: cross-sectional and prospective evidence from a study of young adults. Arch suicide res. 2015;19(3):366–384. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2014.957453.
    Monk D, Ricciardelli LA. Three dimensions of the male gender role as correlates of alcohol and cannabis involvement in young Australian men. Psychol Men Masc. 2003;4(1):57–69. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.57.
    Levant RF, Wimer DJ, Williams CM, Smalley KB, Noronha D. The relationships between masculinity variables, health risk behaviors and attitudes toward seeking psychological help. Int J Men Health. 2009;8(1):3–21. doi: 10.3149/jmh.0801.3.
    Wong YJ, Ho MR, Wang S, Miller IS. Meta-analyses of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes. J Couns Psychol. 2017;64(1):80–93. doi: 10.1037/cou0000176.

  32. “You don’t know that. Much less that the changes to the culture that you’re advocating will cause fewer suicides.”

    I’m not advocating any changes to the culture. So long as the culture is optional, and you understand the consequences, you can do what you want.

    Like I said, it’s like smoking. Smoking causes cancer, but I strongly oppose smoking bans – it should be your choice.

  33. “TGs have a very high attempted suicide rate that is strongly correlated with the support and acceptance they get from society. It rises up to 70% for those who are routinely bullied, assaulted, and persecuted. ”

    So we now have strategy to address the problem over who uses which toilets.

  34. SMFS –

    For a non-homophobic definition of faggot

    There actually is a non-homophobic definition of ‘faggot’ within gay culture. It is not, strictly speaking, what you were talking about, but it is metaphorically applicable.

    It is a very niche sub-culture and not at all applicable to all gay men. In that sub-culture a ‘faggot’ sees himself as less than, and inferior to, a Real Man. A Real Man is usually defined as an Alpha Male. The ‘faggot’ sees his role as to serve – and to be used by in any way – his Real Man.

    So like I said, yeah, metaphorically applicable.

  35. “So we now have strategy to address the problem over who uses which toilets.”

    So what strategy do you use in your house? Does ‘Mrs in Spain’ have to use the dowstairs toilet while you’re in the shower, or something?

    🙂

  36. @NiV, June 21, 2018 at 10:20 am

    Yes, it’s why men Women won’t ask for directions when they’re lost. Or admit they’re lost. They’ll drive around Erratically for hours Crying & Frustrated in the hopes of seeing a familiar landmark, rather than show their vulnerability and dependence by ‘asking someone for help!’

    FTFY

  37. Who the fuck asks for directions? We’ve had smart phones for a decade, almost every car is fitted with a satnav.

  38. Ancient Jewish joke:

    Why did Moses and the children of Israel wander in the desert for forty years?

    Because even back, men refused to stop and ask for directions.

  39. “And you’re not about to admit to being so needy, are you?”

    Trying to find the stupid place she is making you go is SPORT. Trying to turn a crappy situation into fun. Asking for directions would take the fun out of it.

  40. NiV, your question is amusing on so many levels I wouldn’t know where to start. Although we did have a tranny in the house, not so long ago. Just visiting thank goodness. But at least it was one of the convincing ones. Totally convincing, as a mate found out to his horror. Where it went to spend a centavos I haven’t the slightest. We’ve got 4 bathrooms.

  41. “NiV, your question is amusing on so many levels I wouldn’t know where to start.”

    Good! That’s what I hoped.

    “Where it went to spend a centavos I haven’t the slightest. We’ve got 4 bathrooms.”

    And evidently it didn’t matter. Which is as it should be.

  42. Excavator Man – “so that’s 5 week years in Canada then?”

    It is those bloody short summer nights that does it. Canada is a terrible place to live really. No wonder all the polar bears are just giving up.

  43. NiV – “Although I’ve never noticed you guys to pay any attention to evidence before (which may be a symptom, of course…), so I’m putting this up mainly for the amusement value, to see how you go about dismissing/ignoring/rejecting it. Have fun!”

    It is just more advocacy pretending to be science that is the basis of most of your claims. No one should take is seriously.

    Especially given the entire profession is committed to a lie. Well several of them.

  44. “And evidently it didn’t matter. Which is as it should be.

    Whether it mattered or not, you’d have to ask my mate. Although he steadfastly rejects any attempt to open conversation on the incident.

  45. I’m putting this up mainly for the amusement value

    Yeah, everyone has a good giggle at tedious monomaniacal mentals.

  46. It *is* about the high suicide rate among men. The culture causes the suicides.

    I think that statement requires evidence.

  47. “It is just more advocacy pretending to be science that is the basis of most of your claims. No one should take is seriously.”

    Thanks for proving my point.

    “Whether it mattered or not, you’d have to ask my mate. Although he steadfastly rejects any attempt to open conversation on the incident.”

    You mean, you think it might have been a ‘using the same toilet’ incident? The imagination boggles.

    “Yeah, everyone has a good giggle at tedious monomaniacal mentals.”

    I wasn’t the one who brought the subject up. You need to look for your monomaniacs elsewhere.

    “I think that statement requires evidence.”

    Heh! Funny!

  48. NiV: I am not going to wade through reams of advocacy in order to persuade myself that the presence of a stranger with a penis( I prefer to think of them as men no matter what their whimsical gender identification of the day is) in the public convenience designated for women is anything other than alarming.

  49. Men disguising themselves as women so they can get into the women’s restroom. Creepy. That’s why the law exists. And should exist.

    Going out in public? Going to need to use the restroom? Dress accordingly. Some days you can’t dress up. The public doesn’t have to accommodate your deviation, nor should it.

  50. Invariably NiV breaks out the cut and paste feature in his browser in an attempt pass himself off as knowledgeable on any given subject. So my questions for him are as follows:

    1) Have you read all of the articles you’ve cited above?
    2) How many of them were based on the results of clinical trials and/or studies?
    3) Of those based on clinical trials/studies, how many of them have had their results confirmed by additional clinical trials/studies that produced similar results.

    Science… and especially “social science” isn’t worth a shit if it isn’t based on studies/trials of controlled populations were the results are confirmed by duplicated studies/trials.

    A guess: We’ll get a lot of dancing around (for NiV is a windy cunt, if nothing else) before coming to the unadmitted conclusion that the answers are:

    1) No
    2) Dunno
    3) Dunno

  51. “NiV: I am not going to wade through reams of advocacy in order to persuade myself that the presence of a stranger with a penis( I prefer to think of them as men no matter what their whimsical gender identification of the day is) in the public convenience designated for women is anything other than alarming.”

    Of course not. Substitute “Jew”, “Black”, “Homosexual”, “Communist”, “Right-Winger”, “Arsenal Fan”, “Foreigner”, “Catholic”, “Christian”, “Atheist”, “Men with tattoos and shaven heads”, “Racist”, “Homophobe”, “Transphobe”, whatever – lots of people find other people of certain categories “alarming”. That’s what “safe spaces” are all about – they’re places where alarming people and their opinions are banned.

    But unless you’re willing to be banned yourself from every space where others find *you* alarming, then we all have to operate by the principle that people can only be constrained to prevent *actual* harm. Not imagined harm or potential harm or fictional harm. And TGs in toilets as such don’t cause any more harm than anyone else going to the toilet.

    Everyone’s an authoritarian at heart, when it comes to them telling *other* people what they can and cannot do. They only object when it’s *other* people telling *them* what they can’t do. In the long run that doesn’t work – you will always lose your power over others eventually.

    Which is why it is sensible to base your rules on principles that assume that. Never give society any power that you wouldn’t be willing to see used against yourself by your enemies. Because one day they will.

    “Creepy. That’s why the law exists.”

    The law *doesn’t* exist. MtF TGs have been allowed in the women’s toilets in the UK since at least 2010. Your deranged prejudices are not law.

  52. NiV: as penises are the weapon of choice for rape they have no place in an intimate and vulnerable setting such as public women’s toilets, changing rooms or female only swimming ponds. I have absolutely no interest in anyone ‘s gender but absolutely draw the line at what equipment they carry into my protected spaces, partly as traditional modesty and also because I lack the physical strength of biologically male physique and hormones so do fuck off.

  53. “Invariably NiV breaks out the cut and paste feature in his browser in an attempt pass himself off as knowledgeable on any given subject.”

    I was asked if there was evidence. I provided evidence.

    I’m not trying to “pass myself off as knowledgeable”, I’m trying to turn this into a rational debate where evidence is presented and used, rather than random prejudices and suspicions being assumed to be gospel so long as they’re pointing in the right direction. Without success so far, it has to be said.

    If you don’t want to do the work of researching your own opinions, then feel free to skip that stage. There’s no law against holding evidence-free opinions. If you ask for evidence, and somebody helpfully provides you with a list to get you started, but you still don’t want to go to the effort of checking it, then feel free to skip that step too. But don’t complain when someone tries to be helpful by answering the question you yourselves asked!

  54. “NiV: as penises are the weapon of choice for rape they have no place in an intimate and vulnerable setting such as public women’s toilets, changing rooms or female only swimming ponds.”

    Rape is – and should be – illegal. I fully support that being law. Assault is – and should be – illegal. I support that too. And it makes no difference what other characteristics the perpetrator has. Rape and assault – the actual harms done – are all that should be of interest to the law.

    And anyone willing to break *those* laws isn’t going to be put off by a ‘women only’ sign, are they? If there’s a rapist after you, you want strong locks and security doors, and guards.

    Only the innocent and law-abiding would be prevented from doing anything by your law. You’re targeting precisely the people who intend you no harm, who are mentally much the same as you, and who in fact face absolutely horrific rates of rape and both physical and sexual assault themselves, with no defence, no support, no sympathy, because of prejudices like yours. Do you even care about that? So do fuck off yourself.

  55. NiV : the idea is to keep penises out of the ladies loos rather than raise the alarm after an assault. You want to defend your and every other fantasist’s right to act creepily over women’s rights to avoid creeps.

  56. I’m not trying to “pass myself off as knowledgeable”, I’m trying to turn this into a rational debate where evidence is presented and used, rather than random prejudices and suspicions being assumed to be gospel so long as they’re pointing in the right direction.

    I was right, wasn’t I?

    1) No
    2) Dunno
    3) Dunno

    Anyway…

    So let me get this straight: You actually think you’re going to elevate this discussion to a “rational debate” by having everyone read a list of papers that you haven’t read and therefore don’t know a thing about.

    Is that correct?

  57. You’re targeting precisely the people who intend you no harm, who are mentally much the same as you, and who in fact face absolutely horrific rates of rape and both physical and sexual assault themselves, with no defence, no support, no sympathy, because of prejudices like yours.

    That’s a pretty strong declarative statement. Got a citation to an academic paper you’ve read to back that up?

    You know, for the sake of elevating the discussion and whatnot…

  58. “NiV : the idea is to keep penises out of the ladies loos rather than raise the alarm after an assault.”

    OK. Let’s see if you mean that.

    Do you have separate male and female loos in your own house? Do any of the homes you have visited? Did your parents’ house have separate loos when they were raising you?

    Because if not, and you had a husband, boyfriend, father, brother, or son, or visiting male friends and relatives, they all get to put their penises – the rapist’s tool of choice – inside your bathroom at home.

    What’s the difference?

    “So let me get this straight: You actually think you’re going to elevate this discussion to a “rational debate” by having everyone read a list of papers that you haven’t read and therefore don’t know a thing about.”

    No. I know very well you’re not going to read them, just as we all know that you’ve all got absolutely zero evidence for any of your own opinions.

    The point is, after several pages of people spouting made-up evidence-free shite, somebody had the bare-faced cheek to ask if the other side of the argument had any evidence. I simply posted some of the evidence requested to be able to watch the hypocritical reaction as everybody found excuses to ignore it or reject it. As you did.

    It would be kinda nice if you took it as an opportunity to raise your game and a) check the opposing side’s evidence to see if you might be mistaken and b) present your own. I do try.

    But we all know you won’t, because you can’t, because you don’t have any.

    If you don’t have any evidence for your own opinions, it’s hypocritical to ask for anyone else’s. That was my only point.

  59. Because if not, and you had a husband, boyfriend, father, brother, or son, or visiting male friends and relatives, they all get to put their penises – the rapist’s tool of choice – inside your bathroom at home.

    What’s the difference?

    I can’t tell if you’re being serious…

    You honestly think there is no difference between a private bathroom at home and a public one?

  60. “You honestly think there is no difference between a private bathroom at home and a public one?”

    From the point of view of the stated criterion – whether penises are to be allowed in toilets shared by women – there is no difference.

    So either home bathrooms are an issue too, or the ‘penis’ criterion stated above isn’t actually the problem. I suspect it’s the latter, but I’m ‘seriously’ interested in seeing what Ljh will say.

  61. NiV: you’re either thick or perverse or incapable of reading posts except through the distorting prism of your narcissism. This is about women’s safety not fantasists whims. If you’re unwilling to go at least halfway to indulging your delusion by chopping your dick off your commitment is woeful.

  62. “NiV: you’re either thick or perverse or incapable of reading posts except through the distorting prism of your narcissism.”

    I’ve no idea what you’re talking about – it’s a simple enough question to answer. Do you have segregated toilets and bathrooms at home? If not, why does your criterion not apply?

    Should I take it that you don’t want to answer because you know your position is inconsistent/irrational, and don’t want to have to admit it?

    “This is about women’s safety not fantasists whims.”

    I agree. That’s what I’m trying to get at.

    There is no significant threat to women’s safety from TGs. If your argument against them is that anyone with a penis should be treated as a potential rapist, then that also applies to toilets at home. If you don’t insist on segregated toilets at home, then that’s clearly not what you’re actually concerned about. It’s not about safety.

    I suspect you simply don’t like TGs, and are simply seizing on a ‘safety’ excuse to justify persecuting them. But I’m interested to know if you’ve got an alternative explanation. Because your ‘penis’ argument makes no sense.

  63. @Ljh et al

    Most – or in msm speak “vast majority” – of m-f tv/ts want be seen & treated as a woman. Sexually assaulting another woman is not in their make-up.

    Same with f-m tv/ts, most don’t want to sexually assault a man.

    You’re behaving like nanny-state – if it saves one life…

  64. From the point of view of the stated criterion – whether penises are to be allowed in toilets shared by women – there is no difference.

    Aside from BiS’ mention of a party in his 4 bathrooms. All the rest of the discussion has been around TGs in public areas.

    There is a difference between public and home bathrooms, changing rooms, swimming pools, etc.

    To claim the two are the same is disingenuous at best.

  65. “There is a difference between public and home bathrooms, changing rooms, swimming pools, etc. To claim the two are the same is disingenuous at best.”

    Obviously there’s a difference! One’s public, the other’s at home. But why does this have any relevance to Ljh’s argument? If anyone with a penis is to be treated as a potential offender, then that applies to bathrooms at home too.

    So why doesn’t Ljh insist on separate bathrooms at home, too? For ‘women’s safety’?

    Everyone here has lived a lifetime sharing bathrooms with the opposite sex! The vast majority of toilets and changing areas are shared with our families. It’s obviously perfectly possible to manage without problems. The objections are made up – it seems like just a convenient excuse for the anti-TG agenda.

    Or maybe it’s something else. But if so, you need to articulate what your issue actually is, rather than just dodging around the question as if you didn’t know what I was talking about.

  66. “NiV: I do not invite strangers with or without penises into my home to use the loo. Do you?”

    Thank you for engaging! 🙂

    So now you’re saying your criterion is actually only about ‘strangers’, yes? You didn’t mention that before.

    Why do you think being a stranger is relevant?

  67. NiV you sad creature, I refer to my first post at 11.50am which obviously tested your power of comprehension. Is it really that long that you have been boring for tranniedom? As you are younger than I, shouldn’t you be out for the evening? Or are you as unconvincing in the flesh as you are in your arguments?

  68. Thank you. I missed that. You did indeed refer to ‘strangers’ previously. I had only picked up the ‘women’s safety’ argument from “NiV: as penises are the weapon of choice for rape they have no place in an intimate and vulnerable setting such as public women’s toilets,…” My apologies!

    So again, why do you think being a stranger is relevant?

  69. Why do you think being a stranger is relevant?

    Have you ever done a risk assessment for the workplace where you have a grid of consequences versus probability?

    Consequences of being attacked are high.

    In the home, probability is very low of being attacked. In public, the other people are unknowns and there are more of them, so the probability goes up to unacceptable levels. We try to bring it down and mitigate by separating sexes.

    I can’t believe I have to explain this. Or have I fallen for a trick and you’re just trolling us now?

  70. “I can’t believe I have to explain this. Or have I fallen for a trick and you’re just trolling us now?”

    Part of the problem with these sorts of arguments is all the background assumptions people make, that they assume everyone knows so they don’t have to state, but it turns out people disagree on. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

    I have the difficulty that if I try to guess and fill in the gaps, I get into trouble for putting words in people’s mouths, but if I don’t, the argument is too incomplete and incoherent to argue with.

    OK. So the unspoken assumption being made is that strangers are more dangerous to women. Let’s check.

    Go here and look for “Figure 10: Victim-offender relationship for rape or assault by penetration (including attempts) experienced since age 16 by women aged 16 to 59”.

    You will see that 45% of rape cases were by partners or ex-partners, 5% by other family members, 38% by other people known to the victim, and only 13% by strangers. So you’re more than five times more likely to be raped by someone you know and would likely have already let into your house than all the strangers in the world put together! Given that you meet hundreds more strangers than partners in a lifetime, any individual stranger is hundreds of times *less* likely to be a danger.

    If your issue is “women’s safety”, then people you know are a far bigger threat than strangers, and you’re far more likely to share a bathroom at home with a rape threat than meet one in public. That’s even before we get into the practicalities.

    This is why I was trying to get someone to explain their argument properly. I suppose you could call it a ‘trick’, but not the one you think.

    Oh, and by the way, if workmen come round to work on my house and ask to use the loo, I let them. I know my mother has, too. So to answer Ljh’s question “I do not invite strangers with or without penises into my home to use the loo. Do you?” The answer is “yes”. It’s not proved to be a problem.

  71. NiV:

    if workmen come round to work on my house and ask to use the loo, I let them. I know my mother has I assume you mean ‘has used the loo,’ too.

    Simultaneously?

    If TGs should be allowed into women’s toilets because their penis is not a threat to the other women (and the other women had better learn not to be unnerved by it or made uncomfortable, I suppose), what is the basis for the current segregation of public toilets, such that people with penises who identify as men are not permitted into the women’s room? Do you think that should be maintained, or should it be eliminated? Why?

  72. ‘Useless for navigating the rest of the 21st century.’

    Blennerhassett seems unaware that the people are rejecting his indictment of men. We are lurching back to reality. See: Trump, and Brexit.

    A typical Guardian writer good for nothing but tossing word salad.

  73. “I assume you mean ‘has used the loo,’”

    You should assume “has had workmen round and let them use the loo in her house.” Well done for asking!

    “what is the basis for the current segregation of public toilets, such that people with penises who identify as men are not permitted into the women’s room? Do you think that should be maintained, or should it be eliminated? Why?”

    Excellent question! 🙂

    The basis is historic. I think it should (eventually) be eliminated – unisex with individual cubicles for privacy seems like the the best and fairest solution. And the main reason is that a lot of people don’t like undressing even in front of people of the same sex, and so this would solve a lot of problems and stop a lot of arguments for far more people than just the TGs and transphobes.

    It would also mean no more long queues for the girl’s toilets. Everyone can queue together! And maybe *then* something will get done about the shortage of facilities! 🙂

  74. …unisex with individual cubicles for privacy…

    No – people with penises using urinals is significantly more space- and time-efficient than people (with any pumbing) using toilets. I don’t think we want to give up that efficiency advantage. I will grant that it is a philosophically coherent response, though 😉

  75. You should assume “has had workmen round…
    Okay – the difference is that you (and your mum) have not been using the toilets simultaneously with the workmen then. It seems that is what is being requested in allowing people with penises (but who identify as women) to use the women’s toilets.

  76. If your issue is “women’s safety”, then people you know are a far bigger threat than strangers, and you’re far more likely to share a bathroom at home with a rape threat than meet one in public. That’s even before we get into the practicalities.

    Lol.
    That depends on who you associate with. I make a point of only associating socially with decent people – for safety and hanging around scumbags is too much effort.

    Part of the problem with these sorts of arguments is all the background assumptions people make, that they assume everyone knows so they don’t have to state

    Assumptions such as knowing that public and private (home) bathrooms are different and have different social norms?
    Understood, next time we debate, I will explain all my points thoroughly. Normally I assume at least some degree of understanding of social norms, logic and basic facts. I will endeavour to correct this assumption.

    So for this debate, just to clarify:
    home =/= public

    The basis is historic. I think it should (eventually) be eliminated – unisex with individual cubicles for privacy seems like the the best and fairest solution.

    i) Chestertons Fence – the basis is historic, agreed. You don’t seem to understand why people want it this way and why it has been this way for a long time. Probably best t leave alone until you do.

    ii) How so best and fairest? How are you measuring this?
    Least waiting time? Most evenly distributed waiting time? Cleanliness of facilities? Number of facilities available? Type of facilities available? Average time spent in the bathroom? Satisfaction levels?
    Just wanting some clarity, which you asked for as well.

    so this would solve a lot of problems and stop a lot of arguments for far more people than just the TGs and transphobes.

    assumption. Reasoning?
    I could assume it would lead to a lot more arguments as men get fed up of waiting for women who take a lot longer and become frustrated. It could also result in an increase in public urination from said men who can’t be bothered to wait and just use the nearest available wall and could result in an increase in public disorder and violence when these arguments turn physical.

    It would also mean no more long queues for the girl’s toilets. Everyone can queue together! And maybe *then* something will get done about the shortage of facilities!

    Ah! Spread the misery!
    Most of the time there are sufficient facilities. Long queues only appear when there is a constraint on supply or a sudden surge in demand beyond capacity.

    Have you also considered that maybe men and women want different things from their bathroom facilities. (sweeping generalisation incoming) Men don’t want to hang around doing their make-up, having a chat, adjusting clothing, changing sanitary products. Subsequently men will tolerate a much lower standard of facility, which is why gents toilets tend to be more basic.

    For the sake of clarity
    men =/= women
    gents toilets =/= home bathroom
    womens toilets =/= home bathroom
    facility -> publicly accessible toilet

  77. For the intellectually challenged (ie NiV), sharing a public toilet with random members of the opposite sex is not the same as allowing men and women to use a private dwelling toilet at different times. Or even allowing strange people one has invited into the house to use the facilities. Private toilets/bathrooms are lockable single use rooms within a larger secure environment, public toilets are multiple use and open to all. They are utterly different types of environment, and different standards of operation/social norms apply.

    Its really not that complicated.

  78. “That depends on who you associate with. I make a point of only associating socially with decent people – for safety and hanging around scumbags is too much effort.”

    You don’t always get a choice. And when a transgender person is in the room, significant numbers of ‘decent’ people suddenly turn out a lot less decent and a lot more dangerous. As you say, it depends who you associate with.

    “Assumptions such as knowing that public and private (home) bathrooms are different and have different social norms?”

    Ah! You was thinking of the different social norms! I see!

    Yes, I agree – it was precisely this difference in social norms I was using! The argument offered regarding public toilets, you see, was about “women’s safety”. However, my suspicion was that the *real* reason was social norms – society’s former traditional blind prejudice, sexism, and transphobia. The “women’s safety” argument was just a convenient excuse to maintain traditional norms. So I picked an example where the social norm was different but the safety argument was the same (and stronger), to see which was the real reason. If someone recognises that people with penises are just as much a risk at home, and overrides the social norm with a safety argument, then they’re genuinely using a safety argument. If on the other hand they say “that’s different” but can’t give a clear reason why, then they’re operating on the basis of social norms and the “women’s safety” argument is no more than a convenient lie to cover it.

    Of course, there was always a possibility that someone was *genuinely* using a safety argument, through the use of some assumptions or arguments that I hadn’t considered. Like (as it turned out) not knowing the statistics on rape, and thinking that strangers were more dangerous than people you know. But Ljh wouldn’t explain her reasoning – just kept re-stating the conclusion as if it was obvious – so I couldn’t test the possibility.

    You got the same thing happen with every other social change. When women went out to work, people said it was dangerous because they were weaker and would faint from the effort, their brains would overheat, or they would get their hair or clothes caught in the machinery, and all sorts of stupid reasons – as if women didn’t do hard work with dangerous machinery at home. Are these genuine beliefs, or just traditionalists defending their norms? Do they actually know themselves what the justifications for their rules really are? Well, if you point to the same things going on at home where there’s no norm against it, and they say “oh but that’s different”, and if you ask them for their reasoning in detail and they’re unable to explain, only say “it’s just ‘obvious'”, well you know.

    Yes. When it comes to toilets at home, there is no social norm against men and women sharing toilet facilities, and they routinely do so without any particular thought or controversy. This, I think, demonstrates that there is no actual practical difficulty, and everybody has had the daily experience to be able to know it. The difference in situation with public toilets is that they have a different social norm – a last hang-over from Victorian prudery and bronze-age religious intolerance that’s we’ve not yet gotten rid of. And people are inventing excuses to try to defend it.

  79. Oh jeez… you’ve jumped the shark here NiV…

    Yes, I agree – it was precisely this difference in social norms I was using! The argument offered regarding public toilets, you see, was about “women’s safety”. However, my suspicion was that the *real* reason was social norms – society’s former traditional blind prejudice, sexism, and transphobia.

    Societal norms are about safety and keeping a functional society. It is not acceptable, for example, to just drop trou and pinch one off anywhere you damn please. This is because this creates a health hazard for everyone, thus society discourages it. Similar with toilets. Safety and modesty practice became a societal norm, which we keep because its sensible.

    This, I think, demonstrates that there is no actual practical difficulty, everybody has had the daily experience to be able to know it.
    False.
    We all have had enough daily experience with not killing each other that everyone should be able to know not to do it. People still kill each other.

    If someone recognises that people with penises are just as much a risk at home

    Like (as it turned out) not knowing the statistics on rape, and thinking that strangers were more dangerous than people you know
    Again, that’s down to the people you know and choose to associate with. Don’t want to get thrown off a building as a gahyer? Don’t hang around ISIS.

    You don’t always get a choice. And when a transgender person is in the room, significant numbers of ‘decent’ people suddenly turn out a lot less decent and a lot more dangerous.
    I don’t get choice who i socialise with? *facepalm*
    Really?
    Decent people turning less decent and more dangerous? Evidence? Can you point to crime stats that show percentage of people who attack TGs that have no previous record?

    as if women didn’t do hard work with dangerous machinery at home
    HAhhahahhahahahahhaha!!!!
    Dangerous machinery at home? Such as? A mangle?
    There are dangers at home, but not comparable to ones in industry. Have you ever spent time in a factory?

  80. Regarding your rape stats…

    Yes, most are done by people known to victim.
    Have you considered that this may be because people demonstrate risk mitigation behaviours and reduce things like time spent in dark alleys in dodgy areas? Thus the opportunity for stranger rape is a lot lower.

    I did a quick search, in 2015, 15 British tourists were killed in the US, and 14 in France.
    Apparently none (zero) were killed in Yemen or Somalia (or quite a few other places). By your logic, Yemen and Somalia are safer than France and the US as fewer killings of British tourists occurred…

    Or could it be that people have risk mitigation behaviours and don’t do obviously dangerous things? And subsequently, safer things appear more dangerous than they relatively are?

  81. “Societal norms are about safety and keeping a functional society.”

    Some are. Some aren’t.

    For example, we have a societal norm today that says it is socially unacceptable to express racist, sexist, homophobic, or right-wing opinions in public – especially as an employee representing some larger organisation. You can get fired from your job for it. You can get sued for it. You can get ostracised and your business boycotted for it. And good and decent people will nod and approve.

    That’s social norms for you. Sometimes they’re good ideas and sometimes they’re not. Sometimes they’re stuff you agree with and sometimes you don’t. Sometimes you’re the one with the power to assert them, and sometimes you’re the one over which their power is asserted. And they change constantly.

    We cannot just assume that if society imposes a norm, that this is good, or that there are sensible reasons for it. We need to think about this stuff. And that’s precisely why JS Mill wrote On Liberty, and expounded on the Harm Principle, to distinguish those rules that are there for a good reason, and those that are just yet another bunch of prodnoses and petty authoritarians imposing their views on others. “It’s for their own good, and the good of society,” they always say. “Societal norms are about safety and keeping a functional society” is just another way of saying “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz.”

    “Have you considered that this may be because people demonstrate risk mitigation behaviours and reduce things like time spent in dark alleys in dodgy areas?”

    Yes.Most people avoid dark alleys, but I’ve not seen any sign that they avoid public toilets or crowded changing rooms.

    My TG friends *do* however avoid going into toilets alone, and shy aways from public changing rooms entirely, because they’re terrified of what might happen if some random bigot takes exception to their presence and decides to get nasty about it. It’s not uncommon for TGs to give themselves kidney damage from holding it until they get home.

    Have you ever considered why they’re so frightened?

  82. NiV you cannot give yourself kidney damage by “holding it in”. Your friends are given to hyperbole but that is probably par for believing that given XY chromosomes, a penis and testes you are magically a woman because you think that would solve all your problems.

  83. but I’ve not seen any sign that they avoid public toilets or crowded changing rooms.

    Really? Never heard anyone say that they will wait til they get home instead of using the public toilet?

    Have you ever considered why they’re so frightened?

    Yes. Have they considered why people might be frightened or react strongly to them trying to enter the womens’ restrooms when they are in possession of an attached todger?

  84. “NiV you cannot give yourself kidney damage by “holding it in”.”

    Oh yes you can.

    “probably par for believing that given XY chromosomes, a penis and testes you are magically a woman because you think that would solve all your problems.”

    It’s not magic. It’s biology.

    If you have a mutated androgen receptor gene, the brain cells in the developing fetus don’t respond to dihydrotestosterone and your brain develops along the female pattern. It’s like girls who have polycystic ovary syndrome who grow beards, only more extensive – it doesn’t mean they’re not girls.

    And it certainly doesn’t solve your problems! It usually creates a hundred more.

  85. “Really? Never heard anyone say that they will wait til they get home instead of using the public toilet?”

    I’ve heard of people do so on the grounds that public toilets are disgusting, but no, not on safety grounds.

    “Yes. Have they considered why people might be frightened or react strongly to them trying to enter the womens’ restrooms when they are in possession of an attached todger?”

    Yes. Because they’re bigots. Because they’re not thinking clearly. Because that’s what they were brought up to believe. Because they’ve been conditioned by society to hate and fear people who don’t conform. Because someone’s been running a scare campaign, warning them of the dangers.

    It’s certainly not because there’s any actual danger.

  86. NiV: crap! Unless you have prostate problems when the bladder can stretch no further you will pee involuntarily. Your ureters from kidney to bladder have smooth muscle ensuring one way drainage and there is a valve where they enter the bladder to protect the kidneys. Unless these are damaged by pathology especially renal stones, bladder cancer, spinal cord damage.
    I grant that some people are phenotypic females while genetic males but they represent a very small percentage of the population. I find it unteresting that Caster Semenya has married a woman, making her heterosexual in behaviour while exploiting her genetic advantages by competing in elite female support.

    Polycystic ovary syndrome is in no way analogous. It does not persuade woman they are actually blokes. Hyperinsulinaemia seems to be a trigger and normal ovulation can be restored and acne and hirsutism reversed by weight loss and a ketogenic diet without resorting to use of hormones.

    It is a pity that DSM has removed gender dysphoria as a diagnosis due to political pressure because I remain convinced as do the longterm studies by John Hopkins University, pioneer in gender reassignment, that the problems of the unhappy individuals are not due to misgendering but rather a rejection of self. They deserve sympathy and support as much as anorexics do without reinforcing their delusions.

  87. “NiV: crap! Unless you have prostate problems when the bladder can stretch no further you will pee involuntarily.”

    Yes. And in the process leading up to that, the back pressure on the kidneys causes bladder and kidney infections. It’s also a problem with catheterisation.

    “I grant that some people are phenotypic females while genetic males but they represent a very small percentage of the population.”

    Agreed. About 1%. That’s who we’re talking about. And since they’re such a small percentage, it shouldn’t be too much of a problem to accomodate them.

    “Polycystic ovary syndrome is in no way analogous. It does not persuade woman they are actually blokes.”

    That’s not the analogy I’m drawing.

    The analogy is with someone who says: “They’ve got a beard, therefore they’re a bloke. Only blokes have beards. They’re deluded if they think they’re a girl – I mean they have a beard for heavens sake!”

    Don’t you think someone who says so has a point?

    “It is a pity that DSM has removed gender dysphoria as a diagnosis due to political pressure”

    No. They removed it because the previous theory of what caused it was incorrect. Just as it would be incorrect to classify someone with PCOS as mentally ill because they thought they were a girl, despite them having a big thick bushy beard.

    You could classify it as a whole-body physical deformity, if you like. The brain defines who they are. If the body doesn’t match that, then it’s the body that’s wrong. If a girl can ‘wrongly’ have a beard as a physical deformity, then a girl can ‘wrongly’ have a penis likewise. It’s the same principle – just a different body part.

  88. “But not what they are.”

    It defines what they are, too. It depends what you mean by “they”, though. Are you your brain, or your body? Why do we define death as brain death and not the death of any other body part? If you have an organ transplant, do you become partly the person who donated the organ?

    Differences over definitions are at the root of the problem, here.

  89. NiV despite developing a few whiskers post menopause I have not thought to redefine myself as male, however if I developed a penis at puberty like that interesting West Indies family I would be persuaded I was male. Hirsutism in men is only a secondary sexual characteristic due to sensitivity to testosterone which both sexes produce and not a defining characteristic like the presence or absence of a penis and testes(either descended ir undescended)

  90. “It defines what they are, too.”

    I have the body of a 6 foot, african male human being (all of it, not just the beard, or penis)

    However, I identify as a hamster that has discoveed the extraordinary power of human speech.

    1) Should I be actively supported in my belief, or treated with sympathy for my possible problem (the difference between the brain and the body)?

    2) If supported in that belief, should I also be encouraged to entertain the idea of whatever transition medicine might permit?

  91. “…and not a defining characteristic…”

    This is the key issue. There are lots and lots of characteristics that group together *most* of the time, but none of them *all* the time. So if you want a precise definition that always works, you have to pick some subset of the characteristics as “defining”. However, the choice is arbitrary. Some will pick the penis (which makes eunuchs female). Some will pick the XX/XY chromosomes (which fails for Turner’s syndrome). Some will pick beards, or breasts, or pelvic width, or brow ridges, or height, or a deep voice. Some will do it on character and behaviours.

    If different body parts have the characteristics of different sexes, which body parts outrank the others? Well, it’s a commonly observed principle that you can lose or replace most other body parts and still remain the same person – arms, legs, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, genitals, face, teeth, etc. But the one part that it identified with ‘the person’ is the brain.

    So a lot of people use the brain as their “defining characteristic” for all sorts of legal and philosophical questions like “Are they still alive?” You can lose your arms, legs, genitals, heart, and liver, but you’re still alive. But if the brain dies, but the rest of the body is hale and hearty and on life support, you’re legally dead. So they extend the same principle to gender.

    Now, if you want to specify that you’re using your own definition of sex, then of course it can be as you say. Just as I can use my own personal definition of your sex (based on those whiskers, say), and tell you you’re deluded for not agreeing with it. But then we’re just arguing about our choice of definitions, we’re not disagreeing about reality.

    When transgender people talk about their gender, they’re using the conventional and now standard brain-based definition of “male” and “female”. They’re not incorrect as far as the intended meaning of their words goes. But it’s not incorrect to get a different answer using a different definition, either.

    However, it *is* incorrect to claim that your own personal definition is the only one possible; the one true meaning of the word. That’s contrary to reality, and a delusion.

  92. “However, I identify as a hamster that has discoveed the extraordinary power of human speech.”

    Do you have brain scans showing that you have the brain structure of a hamster?

  93. “NiV post modernism is not science”

    Agreed. But saying that different definitions are possible isn’t post modernism.

    Science uses unfamiliar definitions for everyday words all the time!

  94. Science requires falsifiability to test a theory. Post modernism is solipsistic as are your arguments.

  95. “Science requires falsifiability to test a theory.”

    OK. Take a simple scientific concept like “velocity”. What’s your velocity at the moment? How is that falsifiable?

    Do you know the Monty Python song?

  96. Newton covered this for most purposes in a universe with Euclidean geometry. So on earth at normally achievable speeds my velocity can be measured relative to a fixed point.
    Einstein adjusted it for wider application to account for the effects of mass on space time then waited for an opportunity to test it. His Special Theory (1905) passed its first test in 1918 by the observation of a star during a solar eclipse. His General Theory(1916) waited until 2015, results published this year https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-greatest-theory-validated-on-a-galactic-scale/. He always maintained it would take a single ugly fact to disprove the most beautiful of theories. When faced with a “consensus” of a hundred German scientists rejecting his work he joked about the number as it should take only one if he were to disprove his theory.

    The problem of post modern science is that it’s championing of politically desirable theory is at the expense of objectivity, and with the concomitant silencing of critics vide nutrition fads, climativism, transgender theory.

  97. “Newton covered this for most purposes in a universe with Euclidean geometry. So on earth at normally achievable speeds my velocity can be measured relative to a fixed point.”

    Good! This should make it easy to explain.

    When asked my velocity, I say “zero” (or to be more precise (0,0,0).) I’m sat stationary at my computer. That statement is, within the margin of error, correct.

    But now Eric Idle points out that I’m “…standing on a planet that’s evolving And revolving at 900 miles an hour. It’s orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it’s reckoned, The sun that is the source of all our power. Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see, Are moving at a million miles a day, In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour, Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.”

    Has Eric falsified my statement above? Or are we simply using different definitions, and are both correct?

    Science has no problem with dealing with multiple definitions, and can even smoothly switch from one definition to another, so long as everyone understands what definition we’re currently using. Post-modernism tried to ape science, without fully understanding it, and claimed that because there were multiple ways to describe the situation, there was no single absolute reality or truth to be described. They confused the map with the territory. That’s not what I’m doing.

    Nutrition fads and climate science aren’t post modern, they’re simply bad science. Nutrition fads are mostly based on statistical noise from data dredges, the statistical methods being misapplied, and motivated by a lucrative and highly dishonest diet and food marketing industry. Climate science is mostly about institutional lock-in getting too attached to one particular hypothesis. That’s nothing new – Einstein himself did it when the astrophysics consensus declared black holes to be “absurd” several decades before post-modernism achieved ascendancy. In those cases, strong scientific arguments can be made against the consensus position – in the case of climate science, I’ve made a considerable contribution to doing that myself.

    But vague accusations of political bias and “post-modernism” are empty and ineffective at knocking down bad science – it was only when people like Steve McIntyre presented actual maths and data that we took the criticisms seriously. If you want me to listen, you have to show me the evidence.

    And there’s nothing at all wrong with the genetic, neurological, and endocrinological science of transgenderism. In this case, it’s the opposition that is politically motivated.

  98. I’ve heard of people do so on the grounds that public toilets are disgusting, but no, not on safety grounds.

    Clearly you’ve not been to some of the less salubrious parts of the country.

    Yes. Because they’re bigots. Because they’re not thinking clearly. Because that’s what they were brought up to believe. Because they’ve been conditioned by society to hate and fear people who don’t conform. Because someone’s been running a scare campaign, warning them of the dangers.

    It’s certainly not because there’s any actual danger.

    Typical. People have a concern about their safety (whether warranted or not – perception of risk is very important), and your first response is an ad hominim attacks labelling them bigots.
    And you wonder why people are reluctant to engage?

    And there is a danger, you just seem to be wilfully blind to it. It may be a low risk, (may not be) but it is an increase in risk.
    Maybe we’re not all willing or happy to accept this increased risk in exchange for making a few nutters a bit happier.

  99. NiV: nothing will persuade you, except perhaps your eventual disillusionment as you discover the limits of your gender identification.

  100. “People have a concern about their safety (whether warranted or not – perception of risk is very important), and your first response is an ad hominim attacks labelling them bigots.”

    I’ve been called worse, here. I’m supposed to take it, but not you?

    Anyway, it’s just a factual observation. There are lots of different possible categories and reasons. Some people may be genuinely concerned about imagined dangers as a result of the scare campaigns. Other people are bigots. Surely you’re not bold enough to suggest that such people don’t exist?

    “And there is a danger, you just seem to be wilfully blind to it. It may be a low risk, (may not be) but it is an increase in risk.”

    All life is risk. But it is only the advocates of the Precautionary Principle that tell us we should ignore the magnitude.

    As I noted, the risk of sharing your bathroom at home with a rape threat is far higher than for strangers in a public area. So why are people more concerned about strangers? If the reason for that is simply that they didn’t know, then why after being told about it did people here not immediately change their minds and consider the home threat as important too?

    I don’t mind people responding to *both* dangers, or ignoring *both* dangers, or paying attention only to the *larger* danger – but how does it make sense to continue to act on the smaller danger, to the considerable detriment of a socially outcast minority, while *knowingly* ignoring the larger?

    The risk of meeting a stranger rapist is low. The risk of meeting a TG one (given the tiny number of them) is vastly lower. The risk of finding one (or even a pretender) stupid enough to think a public toilet or changing room would be a good place to stage a rape, compared to the multitude of alternative location and opportunities, and who would be put off their crime by as slight an obstacle as a cis-women-only sign on the door, is utterly minuscule. The idea that any rapist would think a pencil skirt and 4 inch heels would make a good outfit for a fast and anonymous getway, with no trail of witnesses… well, it boggles the mind!

    No, I’m finding some difficulty in believing that it’s genuinely all about the risk. But people can believe some very odd things, so maybe…

    “Maybe we’re not all willing or happy to accept this increased risk in exchange for making a few nutters a bit happier.”

    It’s not just about making other people happier (although that’s a more significant moral issue than you make out), it’s about making *yourselves* safer. Because by setting the rules on how TGs are to be treated today (i.e. establishing the Harm Principle as society’s guide), you set limits on how *you* will be treated when society eventually puts you in the ‘outcast’ place that they formerly occupied.

    Do unto others…

  101. “NiV: nothing will persuade you, except perhaps your eventual disillusionment as you discover the limits of your gender identification.”

    *Evidence* persuades me.

  102. @Ljh et al

    Re: Pcar, June 22, 2018 at 8:12 pm

    Too dificult to deal with? Ignore, divert and attack NiV instead?

    Before throwing ad-hom insults, stand back and think:
    Are you:
    libertarian? tolerant? trusting? free thought, speech, market & life?

    Trust & Do no harm are key to all, most do not do harm.

    Trust & Proportionality in favour of “the good” is basis of common law.

  103. With “the extraordinary power of human speech” and all that comes with that, nedicine has advanced, it can now do that scan.

  104. “With “the extraordinary power of human speech” and all that comes with that, nedicine has advanced, it can now do that scan.”

    It’s an interesting thought-experiment. If medicine has advanced to the point that you can transplant a hamster brain into a human body, and add on a few modules for human speech, and then ask it “Are you a hamster?” – what answer would you expect?

  105. Uh?

    Medicine has advanced in order that the scan can be done, not to tramsplant a hamster brain into a human.

    This is a freak human being, that strongly identifies as a hamster (allegedly the scan concurs). Au contraire, says NiV, it is in reality a perfectly normal (but very clever) hamster, in the body of a 6 foot african male human being?

    You didn’t answer the question at 6.28pm; which was the point of the whiskers versus whole body tangent above (NiV at 6.07pm)?

  106. It’s an interesting thought-experiment. If medicine has advanced to the point that you can transplant a hamster brain into a human body, and add on a few modules for human speech, and then ask it “Are you a hamster?” – what answer would you expect?

    Well I doubt that a hamster has the capacity for self-reflection. You need to add more logical and reasoning capabilites, speech, thousands of years of instinct and development, otherwise you’d walk into the room and the first thing the poor hamster-man would do would be to curl up in the corner to hide. At this point it isn’t a hamster at all, merely a poor freak of an experiment.

    Not really interested in a response to that – just pointing out the obvious.

    I do have another genuine question though.

    Would you consider a computer that could pass the Turing test to be human?
    Lets say you took a Turing Test and thought you were talking to a human. It is then shown to you and actually is a box of silicon and copper (etc).
    Do you consider this to be a human with all the rights of a human? Or is it a box, a thing, with no intrinsic rights/privileges?
    Every time you talk to it, it appears to have all the mental capacity and capability of a human, could describe wishes, dreams it has, past experiences, philosophy, logic, anything But when looked at, it is a box of refined and processed materials. Which is it?

  107. “Medicine has advanced in order that the scan can be done, not to tramsplant a hamster brain into a human.”

    A pity. I had understood you to be suggesting that a brain scan could show the person to actually have the brain structure of a hamster (what I was talking about), as opposed to a belief system, if medical technology had advanced sufficiently to make such a thing possible.

    Having a belief that you have the brain structure of an X is not the same thing as actually having the brain structure of an X. Whatever X may be.

    “Would you consider a computer that could pass the Turing test to be human?”

    Good question. Yes, probably. It would have to have the internal mental architecture of a human, too – but it’s highly likely that the easiest way to simulate the output of a human mind would be to use the same internal design.

    “Do you consider this to be a human with all the rights of a human? Or is it a box, a thing, with no intrinsic rights/privileges?”

    Rights/privileges are not necessarily just a human thing. My viewpoint is that moral rights are associated with the social instincts we have evolved for living in dense communities. It’s a deal based on reciprocity. Other social animals have similar instincts – dogs have pack law, and many animals have territories and concepts of ownership.

    When you live in a common community with other intelligences, like dogs, there are certain agreements between parties. They know not to eat your dinner off the table, and act ‘guilty’ if they’re caught doing so. You, conversely, have certain obligations to them as pack leader, to respect their individual territory/property/rights.

    The evolutionary logic that leads to rights and morals between humans has wider applicability, to any group of intelligences living together in a community. I’d certainly extend the principle to AIs, assuming they had been programmed with or otherwise acquired social instincts compatible with human social protocols.

    “Every time you talk to it, it appears to have all the mental capacity and capability of a human, could describe wishes, dreams it has, past experiences, philosophy, logic, anything But when looked at, it is a box of refined and processed materials. Which is it?”

    Humans are made of meat. A collection of atoms obeying the laws of physics. And living cells are basically just nano-machines – a general-purpose self-replicating molecular von Neumann machine.

    Don’t you think that when the AIs look at us, that’s what they’ll see? And that they’ll be asking the same question?

  108. “A pity. I had understood you to be suggesting that a brain scan could show the person to actually have the brain structure of a hamster”

    Yet another typically dishonest manoeuvre.

  109. “Yet another typically dishonest manoeuvre.”

    Dishonest in what way? It’s what I thought you meant.

  110. Or is this going to be another of those conversations where people drop in random accusations and then refuse to explain what they’re talking about?

  111. See the text below (key bits emphasized) if reading comprehension has slipped one past you on this occasion. But I’m done. As an observer, I have seen this pattern before and I don’t have the patience or time for it.

    XYZ
    June 23, 2018 at 5:58 pm

    “the brain defines who they are.”

    But not what they are.

    NiV
    June 23, 2018 at 6:07 pm

    “But not what they are.”

    It defines what they are, too. It depends what you mean by “they”, though. Are you your brain, or your body? ….

    XYZ
    June 23, 2018 at 6:28 pm

    “It defines what they are, too.”

    I have the body of a 6 foot, african male human being (all of it, not just the beard, or penis).

    However, I identify as a hamster that has discoveed the extraordinary power of human speech.

    1) Should I be actively supported in my belief, or treated with sympathy for my possible problem (the difference between the brain and the body)?

    2) If supported in that belief, should I also be encouraged to entertain the idea of whatever transition medicine might permit?

    NiV
    June 23, 2018 at 7:01 pm

    “However, I identify as a hamster that has discoveed the extraordinary power of human speech.”

    Do you have brain scans showing that you have the brain structure of a hamster?

    XYZ
    June 23, 2018 at 11:17 pm

    For the sake of argument – yes.

    June 24, 2018 at 12:02 am

    With “the extraordinary power of human speech” and all that comes with that, nedicine has advanced, it can now do that scan.

    NiV
    June 24, 2018 at 10:39 am

    “With “the extraordinary power of human speech” and all that comes with that, nedicine has advanced, it can now do that scan.”

    It’s an interesting thought-experiment. If medicine has advanced to the point that you can transplant a hamster brain into a human body [you just made that up], and add on a few modules for human speech, and then ask it “Are you a hamster?” – what answer would you expect?

    XYZ
    June 24, 2018 at 11:41 am

    Uh?

    Medicine has advanced in order that the scan can be done, not to tramsplant a hamster brain into a human.

    This is a freak human being, that strongly identifies as a hamster (allegedly the scan concurs). Au contraire, says NiV, it is in reality a perfectly normal (but very clever) hamster, in the body of a 6 foot african male human being?

    You didn’t answer the question at 6.28pm; which was the point of the whiskers versus whole body tangent above (NiV at 6.07pm)?

    NiV
    June 24, 2018 at 4:53 pm

    “Medicine has advanced in order that the scan can be done, not to tramsplant a hamster brain into a human.”

    A pity. I had understood you to be suggesting that a brain scan could show the person to actually have the brain structure of a hamster [ I did ] (what I was talking about [ read what you actually said ] ), as opposed to a belief system, if medical technology had advanced sufficiently to make such a thing possible.

    Having a belief that you have the brain structure of an X is not the same thing as actually having the brain structure of an X. Whatever X may be.

    [ You are no fool ]

  112. “See the text below (key bits emphasized) if reading comprehension has slipped one past you on this occasion. But I’m done. As an observer, I have seen this pattern before and I don’t have the patience or time for it.”

    I’ve seen it before too. People with different background assumptions miscommunicate and fail to understand what the other is saying, assume the other person is being dishonest, and angrily storm off rather than trying to work it out.

    I *do* have the time and patience for it. But it’s your choice.

    Looking at your emphasised bits…

    “[you just made that up]”

    No I didn’t. I asked if the person had “brain scans showing that you have the brain structure of a hamster”, and you replied “For the sake of argument – yes.” The simplest way that could happen is a brain transplant. Another would be a lot of genetic engineering to engineer a hamster brain in a human body – but of course then there are potential arguments about what it means to call it “hamster”. I chose to avoid those difficulties by picking a less ambiguous case to use as the example. If it came out of a hamster, it’s a hamster brain. And would say so – i.e. it would “identify as a hamster that has discoveed the extraordinary power of human speech”.

    And if it’s an actual hamster brain, then it’s obvious that there’s no problem with encouraging the belief, and providing treatment.

    “You didn’t answer the question at 6.28pm; which was the point of the whiskers versus whole body tangent above (NiV at 6.07pm)?”

    I was in the process of doing so, before you derailed the argument by telling me you was talking about “identification” rather than “brain structure”. Although I thought the final step would be obvious once you had got that far.

    It depends on whether the belief is true – i.e. you actually have the brain structure of a hamster – or it’s just a false belief.

    “[ I did ]”

    In that case, I don’t understand your objection.

    “[ read what you actually said ]”

    I did. I assumed at first that you was talking about brain structure, but then you started talking about “This is a freak human being, that strongly identifies as a hamster”, not the same thing at all. But when I say that I’ve obviously misunderstood, you tell me that you meant brain structure all along.

    “[ You are no fool ]”

    No, but that doesn’t prevent miscommunication. 🙂

  113. Perhaps I can explain the example more simply.

    A man walks into the office and announces that he has the mind of a hamster in the body of a human. That’s easy to test. You pop him into the MRI scanner (which is current technology), and if his brain is anatomically the same size, shape, and structure as a hamster brain (i.e. size of a peanut), you might figure he’s on to something, encourage his belief, and offer treatment. If he’s got a perfectly normal-looking human brain in his skull, it’s more likely to be a delusion. (Although there may be more exotic possibilities, like a perfect emulation of hamster ‘software’ on human hardware. Fortunately we don’t need to go there.)

    The same applies to the transgender. There are anatomical differences between male and female brains that MRI scanners can pick up. TGs have anatomical brain structures matching the gender they say they are. They are the equivalent of the hamster-identifying black man who turns out to have an actual hamster-sized/shaped brain.

    Since I’ve provided links to the research half a dozen times or more on here, I routinely assume all the regulars here know about it and would immediately recognise what I was talking about. Perhaps that’s not the case here.

  114. “You still can’t go in the ladies room.”

    Go on then. What law do you think they’re breaking?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.