For rock music to survive it will have to cut back on testosterone

[Cosmik]

There aren't enough transgender people to meaningfully upset those statistics.

Well I'm taking them at their word. If they think it is important to erase objective facts and replace it with a person's subjective choice, I will insist that they then don't then try to use that as an objective fact!

In some number of years' time, your statement may be impossible to verify - apparently there's quite an epidemic of children who are discovering they are uncomfortable with their gender.

 

[maverickronin]

In some number of years' time, your statement may be impossible to verify - apparently there's quite an epidemic of children who are discovering they are uncomfortable with their gender.

That would almost certainly be mass hysteria among their parents.

If there actually are that many transgender people in the future it would make the statistics practically useless though.

 

[Cosmik]

That would almost certainly be mass hysteria among their parents.

If there actually are that many transgender people in the future it would make the statistics practically useless though.

As I think we agree, they're of limited usefulness anyway. They can tell you about numerical trends but they can't distinguish between genuine 'mis-labelling', misattribution of various types of unrelated "uncomfortableness" to gender, and mass hysteria. They can't identify sexism or 'genderism' without making unverifiable assumptions about human nature.

 

[andreasmaaan]

A body of work encompassing controlled experiments that, unfortunately, cannot and do not exist.

There is actually much well-conducted scientific research in this area, so I may have misunderstood your point. What exactly cannot exist, and why not?

To anyone who feels that the idiots have taken over the asylum in the case of Brexit, I feel the same way about people who are claiming some sort of insight into how society works when they claim sexism in a particular field and want to change it based on their own warped judgements, biases and prejudice.

Can you think of an example, either historical or hypothetical, where a claim of sexism would be acceptable according to your standard?

They can tell you about numerical trends but they can't distinguish between genuine 'mis-labelling', misattribution of various types of unrelated "uncomfortableness" to gender, and mass hysteria.

How do you distinguish between "genuine" mislabelling and "misattribution"? What is the decisive difference in your view?

 

[bobhol]

Since this thread has been a bit of a free for all I'll put in my 2 cents which I expect everybody to ignore.
Rock/Long live Rock
There are a lot of parallels between the growth and decline of Big Band Music (1930's - Today) and Rock/Rock and Roll (early 50's - Today)
My parents grew up in the Big Band era and I have inherited their love for it. Benny Goodman, Glen Miller, The Dorsey Bros were big in their days.
The bands evolved, the music evolved but the popularity dwindled as other types of music caught the mainstreams attention. And yes it still exists today. Especially on every college campus that has a school of music.

 

[Cosmik]

There is actually much well-conducted scientific research in this area, so I may have misunderstood your point. What exactly cannot exist, and why not?

You can't do a controlled experiment; all you can do is observe while myriad arbitrary changes in society take place. So, an apparent increase in gender dysphoria *may* be due to 'mass hysteria' caused by a single episode of a soap opera. You'll never be able to disentangle the factors.

But I'm sure that there are "well established scientific methods etc.", and it's possible to write lots of words that look very sensible and scientific, and to list lots of statistics using methods that are 'by the soft sciences book' thus creating a piece of 'well-conducted scientific research'. But something that is conducted as well as it is possible to do doesn't make it valid. And as scientists always point out at stage 2 of the argument, science doesn't purport to reveal the truth; it can always be superseded. And so the circle completes.

Can you think of an example, either historical or hypothetical, where a claim of sexism would be acceptable according to your standard?

A claim can always be made, but the response to it in this area must always be subjective.
You can't make a case for gender being a tremendously important difference between people and then say that men and women won't spontaneously organize themselves on gender lines. If they do that, the statistics will show gender 'imbalances' and any attempt, no matter how correct by the (soft) scientific book, to disentangle genuine gender differences from sexist behaviour will have a strong subjective element to it. The fact that 'toxic masculinity' is now a common term amongst 'progressives' doesn't bode well for my gender's (or my sex's) chances in the future! I don't think scientists and politicans are showing themselves to be unbiased when there's virtue capital on offer.

How do you distinguish between "genuine" mislabelling and "misattribution"? What is the decisive difference in your view?

I don't think I can do it.

In the case of an unfortunate person with dysphoria about a body part and who wants to chop their own leg off, it is fairly easy to see that this is a mental aberration and they should probably not be 'indulged' without extreme reluctance - and I don't think we would hold out too much hope for a complete 'cure' afterwards.

Can you distinguish between a person who attributes their depression or unhappiness to their gender label rather than a body part? Might it not be more-or-less the same phenomenon but with just a different fixation? No doubt you can say common sense things like "I would want to talk very carefully to the person at length in order to ascertain their genuine identity issues before recommending any further actions. This would be done in accordance with well-established research into the field". Etc. But this would just be words. The person who wants to chop their leg off would be just as sure; determined; lucid as the gender dysphoric person.

Luckily, the person with the fixation on their label *can* just change the label - or will be able to in the near future. If they are happy forever from then on, then I am glad.

 

[andreasmaaan]

You can't do a controlled experiment; all you can do is observe while myriad arbitrary changes in society take place. So, an apparent increase in gender dysphoria *may* be due to 'mass hysteria' caused by a single episode of a soap opera. You'll never be able to disentangle the factors.

But I'm sure that there are "well established scientific methods etc.", and it's possible to write lots of words that look very sensible and scientific, and to list lots of statistics using methods that are 'by the soft sciences book' thus creating a piece of 'well-conducted scientific research'. But something that is conducted as well as it is possible to do doesn't make it valid. And as scientists always point out at stage 2 of the argument, science doesn't purport to reveal the truth; it can always be superseded. And so the circle completes.

Actually your statement that I quoted was in relation to sexism, not gender dysphoria (see posts #57-59).

It was this topic that I was hoping you'd speak to.

(I'm not interested in "soft" science here either btw.)

Can you distinguish between a person who attributes their depression or unhappiness to their gender label rather than a body part? Might they not be more-or-less the same phenomenon but with just a different fixation? No doubt you can say common sense things like "I would want to talk very carefully to the person at length in order to ascertain their genuine identity issues before recommending any further actions. This would be done in accordance with well-established research into the field". Etc. But this would just be words. The person who wants to chop their leg off would be just as sure; determined; lucid as the gender dysphoric person.

In some ways a distinction can be made, and in others it can't.

In the case of a gender label, the person is asking others to treat them differently. In the case of a body part, the person is asking to be allowed to make a physical alteration to their body.

Are you against allowing a sure, determined, lucid person to remove a limb? If so, why?

And what do you mean by "this would just be words"? Are you suggesting that it would not be better to ensure that a person is lucid, that their desire is enduring, that they have considered all possible ramifications, etc? Whether we label all this "just words" or not, surely you'd agree it's important?

You can't make a case for gender being a tremendously important difference between people and then say that men and women won't spontaneously organize themselves on gender lines.

I didn't quite catch your drift here. Who did you see as trying to make this case? And why does one preclude the other?

 

[maverickronin]

Can you distinguish between a person who attributes their depression or unhappiness to their gender label rather than a body part? Might it not be more-or-less the same phenomenon but with just a different fixation? No doubt you can say common sense things like "I would want to talk very carefully to the person at length in order to ascertain their genuine identity issues before recommending any further actions. This would be done in accordance with well-established research into the field". Etc. But this would just be words. The person who wants to chop their leg off would be just as sure; determined; lucid as the gender dysphoric person.

Luckily, the person with the fixation on their label *can* just change the label - or will be able to in the near future. If they are happy forever from then on, then I am glad.

There is an important difference here though. Ending up as a non-dysphoric male or female is the normal biological state of affairs. Experiencing dysphoria between two typical phenotypes is better classified as a developmental disorder rather than some sort of psychosis. I see it as having a root biological cause, not merely some sort of expression of dissatisfaction within the context of their culture.

To put it another way, trans people aren't otherkin.

 

[andreasmaaan]

There is an important difference here though. Ending up as a non-dysphoric male or female is the normal biological state of affairs. Experiencing dysphoria between two typical phenotypes is better classified as a developmental disorder rather than some sort of psychosis. I see it as having a root biological cause, not merely some sort of expression of dissatisfaction within the context of their culture.

I'm more reluctant to medicalise so-called gender dysphoria as a disorder, or to ascribe it to a root biological cause (not least because it's not clear what the supposed root biological basis is). I'm also not sure it can be removed from cultural context, as "gender" itself is - at least significantly - culturally defined.

What do you see as the root biological cause?

 

[Sal1950]

If your child is confused about which bathroom to go in, tell them to look between there legs and make a intelligent decision.
Can we get back to music and audio please.
Chicks like guys with big guitars and tight pants
Guys like chicks that like their tight pants, and with big boobs, it's OK if they want to play guitars. (see video)
Rock started to die when Elvis went Hollyweird, Jerry Lee married a 15 yo, and Little Richard got religion.

 

[maverickronin]

I'm more reluctant to medicalise so-called gender dysphoria as a disorder, or to ascribe it to a root biological cause (not least because it's not clear what the supposed root biological basis is). I'm also not sure it can be removed from cultural context, as "gender" itself is - at least significantly - culturally defined.

What do you see as the root biological cause?

Disorder may be too strong a word since there aren't really any detriments outside of a bigoted society but it's at least an uncommon developmental pathway.

The root cause is almost certainly neurological but given the current state of the science I think that's about all that can be said.

If your child is confused about which bathroom to go in, tell them to look between there legs and make a intelligent decision.

Sex segregated bathrooms seem to mostly be a holdover from Victorian prudishness anyway...

 

[Thomas savage]

Sex segregated bathrooms seem to mostly be a holdover from Victorian prudishness anyway...

That’s exactly what I tell the officers when I’m caught in the ladies .

 

[Cosmik]

There's a thing about this that it is easy to miss: 'Man' or 'Woman' is not your identity. It is a convenient, loose designation based on the fact that nature splits the population on average into roughly male and female characteristics.

If someone (half-jokingly) says something like "You're behaving like a bunch of women, getting hysterical over nothing". Or "You're behaving like a bunch of men, killing each other for the sake of winning", it strikes me that if you are actually offended by such a characterisation of your gender, it means you are a Team Man or Team Woman fanatic. You are implicitly accepting that all men or all women behave the same, and then you are going to protest that none of them behave like that.

I wouldn't think like that at all. If someone said it in my presence, I would implicitly know that it applied to someone else but me. I've been designated a man for basic administrative purposes, but I don't share all the characteristics of all other men. And yes, I might recognise the characterisation for a large proportion of men, but it doesn't apply to me. Why would I be offended? Why would I think that the social construct of 'man' represents my identity in all its aspects? Everyone is unique.

Identity politics is ridiculous.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Since this thread has been a bit of a free for all I'll put in my 2 cents which I expect everybody to ignore.
Rock/Long live Rock
There are a lot of parallels between the growth and decline of Big Band Music (1930's - Today) and Rock/Rock and Roll (early 50's - Today)
My parents grew up in the Big Band era and I have inherited their love for it. Benny Goodman, Glen Miller, The Dorsey Bros were big in their days.
The bands evolved, the music evolved but the popularity dwindled as other types of music caught the mainstreams attention. And yes it still exists today. Especially on every college campus that has a school of music.

See the difference is I like Rock music. I don't like Big Band. Everything today is ego-centric (except that word has gone somewhat out of fashion for more words). Since that is how I experience it, then that is how the whole world is, and if anyone disagrees they should be forced to accept my social construct. They can have their own (bigoted, biased, incorrect) social construct, but they have to accept mine as fully valid in any way I wish to interpret that.

In your case, your preferred social construct harkens back to an earlier time of greater social oppression and point of view limiting as it belonged to your parents. Which makes it invalid compared to mine. There probably should be some legislation to protect a proper viewpoint (like mine) from being polluted or restricted by yours. Living in a modern liberal democracy requires such restrictions to ensure freedom. Its amazing people don't automatically understand how my viewpoint is the right one.

 

[Thomas savage]

See the difference is I like Rock music. I don't like Big Band. Everything today is ego-centric (except that word has gone somewhat out of fashion for more words). Since that is how I experience it, then that is how the whole world is, and if anyone disagrees they should be forced to accept my social construct. They can have their own (bigoted, biased, incorrect) social construct, but they have to accept mine as fully valid in any way I wish to interpret that.

In your case, your preferred social construct harkens back to an earlier time of greater social oppression and point of view limiting as it belonged to your parents. Which makes it invalid compared to mine. There probably should be some legislation to protect a proper viewpoint (like mine) from being polluted or restricted by yours. Living in a modern liberal democracy requires such restrictions to ensure freedom. Its amazing people don't automatically understand how my viewpoint is the right one.

 

[Sal1950]

Sex segregated bathrooms seem to mostly be a holdover from Victorian prudishness anyway...

Maybe, but let me know how you feel when you send your 6 yo daughter into the mens room with Aqualung.
"Sitting on a park bench,
eyeing little girls with bad intent"

 

[Ron Texas]

This thread has become useless.

 

[maverickronin]

Maybe, but let me know how you feel when you send your 6 yo daughter into the mens room with Aqualung.

I'd just go in there with her...

 

[Sal1950]

I'd just go in there with her...

Little protection from him "accidentally" flashing his ***** at the urinal, etc.
But hey, if your OK with that sort of thing, who am I to criticize?

 

[Thomas savage]

It’s totally normal to see girls ( up to about 6 or 7 ) in the men’s changing room in my local gym, the gyms a national chain ( Nuffield health ) they also run private hospitals.