Roe v Wade

[sbgawa]

I think mark (inadvertently) flags an important factor, which SkStu mentioned earlier - social media. It's probably worthy of its own thread tbh (cos this post is going to veer off-topic...)

It's clearly not the only factor of course - the abortion referendum in 83 was fairly fractious and there was no social media then. Abortion is pretty much always going to be an emotive subject.

But social media does seem to be able to have a big impact on people's views (as mark has shown) I can't remember where I read this, but there was a survey of maybe 100 people attending a flat earth induction (or something like that) and every one of them got their interest in flat earth from YouTube. There was a study last year (https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes) which said covid denial/anti-vax views could be linked to 12 influential people through social media. There's an article on Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2021/09/03/social-media-remains-a-source-for-news-and-a-breeding-ground-for-pandemic-conspiracies/) about the link between social media and misinformation too. And National Geographic ran a feature a while back on what it called an attack on science, along the same lines.

It feels like these sort of nutty things - you can add in climate change denial, using your pronouns, alternative medicine, and so on - have been growing in recent years, whereas you would like to have thought increased information would decrease their prevalence instead. Some are harmless as they're clearly stupid (flat earth); others are potentially very dangerous (covid denial/anti-vax)

On a related note, I got the 50th anniversary Apollo 11 boxset there a couple of years ago and one thing it includes is a BBC debate from shortly after on the philosophical and social implications for mankind arising from travelling to another world. It's amazing how respectful the debate is, and how much it benefits from that (albeit it's a social debate rather than a political one, so it'll always be less charged)

Or you can take the infamous Life of Brian debate in 1979 (https://youtu.be/1ni559bHXDg) between John Cleese, Michael Palin, Malcolm Muggeridge and the Bishop of Southwark - the latter two argue in a more "modern style" (for want of a better word - personal attacks without making any real valid points - while the Pythons (and moderator Tim Rice) try engage in a genuine discussion. It's notable that the audience sees this almost straight away and sides with the Pythons. There's a very good background article on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Night,_Saturday_Morning) about the debate - for example "Cleese said [in 2013] that it left him bored and he realised that there was no attempt at a proper discussion, and no attempt to find any common ground."

I don't watch a huge amount of TV debates (or TV in general), but I don't think debates these days come close to this standard very often. I do think social media - 140 characters, block who you don't like, dismiss people as racist/right-wing/liberals/transphobes/TERFs instead of making a point, and so on - really does play into that.

And if that's the case, this sort of stuff is only going to grow in the coming years unfortunately, and not just in the US.

As I say, it can't be the only factor, but I think it is a big one.

Social media and the cancel culture that goes with it has made it impossible to make a mistake.
Look at that young race driver for red bull who made a racist remark while playing a video game recently (actual detail not reported) his contract was cancelled with red bull and when his other team held onto him on the basis that he is a young (gob****e i would add aren't they all at that age) who made a mistake and is his whole life to be cancelled because of this even when he apologises and expresses deep regret. The Formula 2 company came out and said they were surprised he was not dropped from his team,,,,
Does everyone believe that a young eejit who uses a racist term and then apologises should have his life ruined because the teams are afraid of a social media backlash.?
Not arguing for a second it wasn't 100% wrong whatever he said and maybe if i knew it might change my mind about this individual case but its the general black and white , right or wrong, no compromise no empathy no forgiveness possible that depresses me

Turn it around if the kid had used a word for Jews.....cancelled ?
Or said people who believe in Jesus are eejits ....cancelled ?

Is there no room for balance? Kevin Myers was hounded a couple of years ago for making a remark which was deemed anti jewish (if i remember right) despite a lifetime of pro jewish sentiment he was hammered and hammered.
Anyone in public life is one mistake away from being cancelled regardless of the other 99.9999% of their life. Its a scary world for them

[Eminence Grise]

Related to the social media angle...

Faster internet speeds linked to lower civic engagement in UK
'The analysis of behaviour among hundreds of thousands of people led by academics from Cardiff University and Sapienza University of Rome found faster connection speeds may have reduced the likelihood of civic engagement among close to 450,000 people – more than double the estimated membership of the Conservative party. They found that as internet speeds rose between 2005 and 2018, time online “crowded out” other forms of civic engagement.
'The study’s authors have also speculated that the phenomenon may have helped fuel populism as people’s involvement with initiatives for “the common good”, which they say are effectively “schools of democracy” where people learn the benefit of cooperation, has declined.'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/23/internet-access-decline-civic-engagement-uk

No study on Ireland, but we can't be that dissimilar. We need less online and more in-person interaction.

[pineapple stu]

Social media and the cancel culture that goes with it has made it impossible to make a mistake.
Agree with that. I see the creator of Friends has come out and made a grovelling apology for using the wrong pronouns for a transgender character on the show 25 years ago - it doesn't seem to matter that it's before all this pronoun nonsense was even invented, but she still has to apologise for it.

It's a very similar culture to that in North Korea, strangely. They start the week in schools* by asking pupils to tell tales on who did what. If someone accuses you of something, you have to stand in front of the class while others pile on the accusation; you can't deny it and then you have to profess shame and promise to try better. It's all part of the cult mindset they have there, and is obviously not a good thing to have creeping in here. In fact, here is a North Korean refugee (https://www.insider.com/north-korea-defector-says-columbia-university-reminded-her-kim-regime-2021-6) who went to college in the US likening experience to living in North Korea.

(John McEnroe was asked on an American TV show if he wanted to apologise for comments he made on Emma Raducanu when she withdrew from her first Wimbledon a couple of years ago; I think she had a panic attack on court or something like that. His comments had been perfectly reasonable and came from the point of having been a young protege himself. He looked the host in the eye and just said "Eh - no". I had huge respect for him for that)

This is all veering in random directions now, so feel free to split of course!


* - details from This is Paradise! My North Korean Childhood by Hyok Kang.

[sbgawa]

Agree with that. I see the creator of Friends has come out and made a grovelling apology for using the wrong pronouns for a transgender character on the show 25 years ago - it doesn't seem to matter that it's before all this pronoun nonsense was even invented, but she still has to apologise for it.

It's a very similar culture to that in North Korea, strangely. They start the week in schools* by asking pupils to tell tales on who did what. If someone accuses you of something, you have to stand in front of the class while others pile on the accusation; you can't deny it and then you have to profess shame and promise to try better. It's all part of the cult mindset they have there, and is obviously not a good thing to have creeping in here. In fact, here is a North Korean refugee (https://www.insider.com/north-korea-defector-says-columbia-university-reminded-her-kim-regime-2021-6) who went to college in the US likening experience to living in North Korea.

(John McEnroe was asked on an American TV show if he wanted to apologise for comments he made on Emma Raducanu when she withdrew from her first Wimbledon a couple of years ago; I think she had a panic attack on court or something like that. His comments had been perfectly reasonable and came from the point of having been a young protege himself. He looked the host in the eye and just said "Eh - no". I had huge respect for him for that)

This is all veering in random directions now, so feel free to split of course!


* - details from This is Paradise! My North Korean Childhood by Hyok Kang.


Anything is better than discussing abortion.
Are you a baby killer or a woman hater ??..............please don't answer it is a commentary on social media not a question.;)

I actually dont count this place as social media (with a few honourable exceptions)

[dahamsta]

Leftist is definitely used pejoratively. Same as woke, snowflake, virtue signaller etc. Right wing press in UK's standard rebuke of an argument from the socially centre / left of centre usually takes at least one of these forms, introducing or even placing total reliance on an ad hominem angle to the argument. Priti Patel's Rwanda plans are apparently under attack from woke lawyers or lefty lawyers (better alliteration for a tabloid headline). Maybe they're just lawyers who think the policy is worth challenging on legal grounds.

I see it on Reddit mostly, up until recently always by conservatives, but recently I've seen people there say "I'm leftist" and I can't decide if they're stupid or trying to be smart. I certainly won't be using it anyway, the right can keep it.

[dahamsta]

Agree with that. I see the creator of Friends has come out and made a grovelling apology for using the wrong pronouns for a transgender character on the show 25 years ago - it doesn't seem to matter that it's before all this pronoun nonsense was even invented, but she still has to apologise for it.

I assume you mean nonsense for non-trans people, which I agree with. For trans people, I think they should absolutely be allowed to state their pronouns, if they wish, to help people not misgender them.

I'm sure I've said it here before, but on the subject in general, I think what happened with Graham Linehan is a tragedy. It all started with an episode of The IT Crowd, with Douglas Renholm dating a trans woman, and reacting in typical Douglas Renholm fashion. It was entirely within character, it didn't make his behaviour look ok, the reaction was just over the top and ridiculous. If he had just said that at the time, even with a back-handed "I'm sorry you were offended", it would be done and dusted. But the fundamentalists went mental with it, he reacted badly, and it's been a snowball down a hill ever since.

I wouldn't excuse his current behaviour for a second, but it's probably bordering on a mental health issue at the very least. Trans culture, and indeed LGBT culture in general, has fundamentalists like every other group, and they make other people fundamentalists against them.

[pineapple stu]

I assume you mean nonsense for non-trans people, which I agree with. For trans people, I think they should absolutely be allowed to state their pronouns, if they wish, to help people not misgender them.
Well I suppose there's various levels to that.

Non-trans people putting "he/him" or "she/her" on their e-mails/social media profiles is nonsense. Yes, I can assume your gender because humans have evolved to be spectacularly good at doing that.

For trans people - I think it's important to clarify what's covered by that. I don't agree with gender self-identification for example. I am male; I can't simply decide in the morning that I'm female. I know legally I can, but the law isn't science. And I think the way social media can lead to a form of groupthink (not sure if that's the best word - but similar to the examples given earlier on how it's driven belief in flat earth, covid denial, etc) is almost certainly by itself going to drive an increase in people claiming this. That doesn't really make sense and I don't buy into it. I can't decide in the morning that I'm black or 21, for example (though the age thing has been taken to court (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46133262), strangely)

If you opt to go down the medical/operation route, then I think there's long been a general social acceptance to acknowledge this as a sex change, and your pronouns change and that's fine. But I think it's important to at least quietly acknowledge that a sex change still doesn't really change your sex. Biology is far, far more complicated than having your penis cut off and taking some hormones.

I think the recent FINA decision to effectively ban transgender people from women's competition reflects this, and is quite reasonable. Caitlyn Jenner (who as Bruce Jenner won Olympic gold in 1976 of course) is one of those who's supportive of the move (https://twitter.com/Caitlyn_Jenner/status/1538589672493879296), though I think there's been a lot of opposition to it from LGBT groups. Laurel Hubbard - the 43-year-old New Zealand weightlifter at the last Olympics - praised the IOC at the time for "establishing that sport is something for all people, that it is inclusive and is accessible (https://www.skysports.com/olympics/news/15234/12370834/laurel-hubbard-transgender-weightlifter-out-of-olympic-final-after-failing-to-register-lift)", but Seb Coe, the President of World Athletics has said "If we’re making a judgment about fairness or inclusion, I will always fall down on the side of fairness (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jun/20/sebastian-coe-hints-athletics-may-bar-transgender-women-from-female-competition).” I think this is an important discussion that gets drowned out by general mud-slinging in this area unfortunately.

Then there's the issue of stuff like xe/xem or ze/hir - and, no. This is just self-indulgence.

Of course, the huge complication in all this is that so far as I know, it's practically impossible to diagnose transgenderism as such; you can really only take someone's word for it. I'm not sure it's even possible to rule out the idea that it might be simply all in the head and that the future may see better ways of helping than surgery. (I know this is getting close to what was said about homosexuality back in the day, but I think neuroscience can at least prove sexual attraction, so knock yourself out with whoever you want as far as I'm concerned)

Another roundy-bouty, vaguely on topic, probably controversial post, but sure if it leads to more discussion, then what harm :)

[pineapple stu]

(Also, I see mark12345 has quietly dropped away from the thread without acknowledging any of the points made on the Maryland bill...)

[SkStu]

Well I suppose there's various levels to that.

Non-trans people putting "he/him" or "she/her" on their e-mails/social media profiles is nonsense. Yes, I can assume your gender because humans have evolved to be spectacularly good at doing that.

For trans people - I think it's important to clarify what's covered by that. I don't agree with gender self-identification for example. I am male; I can't simply decide in the morning that I'm female. I know legally I can, but the law isn't science. And I think the way social media can lead to a form of groupthink (not sure if that's the best word - but similar to the examples given earlier on how it's driven belief in flat earth, covid denial, etc) is almost certainly by itself going to drive an increase in people claiming this. That doesn't really make sense and I don't buy into it. I can't decide in the morning that I'm black or 21, for example (though the age thing has been taken to court (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46133262), strangely)

If you opt to go down the medical/operation route, then I think there's long been a general social acceptance to acknowledge this as a sex change, and your pronouns change and that's fine. But I think it's important to at least quietly acknowledge that a sex change still doesn't really change your sex. Biology is far, far more complicated than having your penis cut off and taking some hormones.

I think the recent FINA decision to effectively ban transgender people from women's competition reflects this, and is quite reasonable. Caitlyn Jenner (who as Bruce Jenner won Olympic gold in 1976 of course) is one of those who's supportive of the move (https://twitter.com/Caitlyn_Jenner/status/1538589672493879296), though I think there's been a lot of opposition to it from LGBT groups. Laurel Hubbard - the 43-year-old New Zealand weightlifter at the last Olympics - praised the IOC at the time for "establishing that sport is something for all people, that it is inclusive and is accessible (https://www.skysports.com/olympics/news/15234/12370834/laurel-hubbard-transgender-weightlifter-out-of-olympic-final-after-failing-to-register-lift)", but Seb Coe, the President of World Athletics has said "If we’re making a judgment about fairness or inclusion, I will always fall down on the side of fairness (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jun/20/sebastian-coe-hints-athletics-may-bar-transgender-women-from-female-competition).” I think this is an important discussion that gets drowned out by general mud-slinging in this area unfortunately.

Then there's the issue of stuff like xe/xem or ze/hir - and, no. This is just self-indulgence.

Of course, the huge complication in all this is that so far as I know, it's practically impossible to diagnose transgenderism as such; you can really only take someone's word for it. I'm not sure it's even possible to rule out the idea that it might be simply all in the head and that the future may see better ways of helping than surgery. (I know this is getting close to what was said about homosexuality back in the day, but I think neuroscience can at least prove sexual attraction, so knock yourself out with whoever you want as far as I'm concerned)

Another roundy-bouty, vaguely on topic, probably controversial post, but sure if it leads to more discussion, then what harm :)

Again, i agree with all of the above Pineapple. The dialogue on these topics is so important but even sincere discussion as per the above is also so risky given the climate of consequence we are facing today which you and DaHamsta have both spoken about. I know we are in an obscure, wee corner of the internet but posting something like that on twitter or elsewhere would likely have consequences (in some ways depending on how important Pineapple Stu is in the public realm :)).

Anyway, what really gets me - more than anything else - about the trans topic is the, admittedly small, number of parents who force their will onto their young pre-pubescent kids. If their girl is a tomboy or their boy is a bit effeminate they start changing their pronouns, dressing them up as the opposite sex and labelling them as trans/queer/whatever. It just feels so wrong to me to see that happen. Being a kid is about being a kid. Stop bringing sexuality and gender into it at that age. Let that be about individual self-exploration during or post puberty as it has been for long enough. And as a parent just be there to support their decision and love them. The imposing of wills on kids in those early years just comes across as grossly inappropriate, controlling and done in the spirit of virtue-signalling in a weird way, even.

[sbgawa]

Again, i agree with all of the above Pineapple. The dialogue on these topics is so important but even sincere discussion as per the above is also so risky given the climate of consequence we are facing today which you and DaHamsta have both spoken about. I know we are in an obscure, wee corner of the internet but posting something like that on twitter or elsewhere would likely have consequences (in some ways depending on how important Pineapple Stu is in the public realm :)).

Anyway, what really gets me - more than anything else - about the trans topic is the, admittedly small, number of parents who force their will onto their young pre-pubescent kids. If their girl is a tomboy or their boy is a bit effeminate they start changing their pronouns, dressing them up as the opposite sex and labelling them as trans/queer/whatever. It just feels so wrong to me to see that happen. Being a kid is about being a kid. Stop bringing sexuality and gender into it at that age. Let that be about individual self-exploration during or post puberty as it has been for long enough. And as a parent just be there to support their decision and love them. The imposing of wills on kids in those early years just comes across as grossly inappropriate, controlling and done in the spirit of virtue-signalling in a weird way, even.


I think for the majority of parents in that subset it is 100% about their need to demonstrate their own Right On attitude.
Common sense isn't as common as it used to be.
If your 18 (or thereabouts kid says he is gay) "no problem son, i love you regardless" if your 12 year old son plays with barbie, throw him an action man he probably just wants to play rather than define himself as he/she and make a statement about his sexual identity.

[pineapple stu]

Anyway, what really gets me - more than anything else - about the trans topic is the, admittedly small, number of parents who force their will onto their young pre-pubescent kids.
Definitely. That's a movement that'll have blood on its hands in years to come unfortunately. The whole area of puberty blockers in particular is quite concerning. And then you've Charlize Theron, whose three-year-old (adopted) son said "I'm not a boy" and Theron said "Right so; I'll raise you as a girl", which is just daft. You don't indulge three-year-olds like that, on any topic. A three-year-old could say "I'm a horsey!" but you don't send them to live in a field and feed them hay.

[sbgawa]

Definitely. That's a movement that'll have blood on its hands in years to come unfortunately. The whole area of puberty blockers in particular is quite concerning. And then you've Charlize Theron, whose three-year-old (adopted) son said "I'm not a boy" and Theron said "Right so; I'll raise you as a girl", which is just daft. You don't indulge three-year-olds like that, on any topic. A three-year-old could say "I'm a horsey!" but you don't send them to live in a field and feed them hay.


:D Love it

[ontheotherhand]

I think mark (inadvertently) flags an important factor, which SkStu mentioned earlier - social media. It's probably worthy of its own thread tbh (cos this post is going to veer off-topic...)

It's clearly not the only factor of course - the abortion referendum in 83 was fairly fractious and there was no social media then. Abortion is pretty much always going to be an emotive subject.

But social media does seem to be able to have a big impact on people's views (as mark has shown) I can't remember where I read this, but there was a survey of maybe 100 people attending a flat earth induction (or something like that) and every one of them got their interest in flat earth from YouTube. There was a study last year (https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes) which said covid denial/anti-vax views could be linked to 12 influential people through social media. There's an article on Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2021/09/03/social-media-remains-a-source-for-news-and-a-breeding-ground-for-pandemic-conspiracies/) about the link between social media and misinformation too. And National Geographic ran a feature a while back on what it called an attack on science, along the same lines.

It feels like these sort of nutty things - you can add in climate change denial, using your pronouns, alternative medicine, and so on - have been growing in recent years, whereas you would like to have thought increased information would decrease their prevalence instead. Some are harmless as they're clearly stupid (flat earth); others are potentially very dangerous (covid denial/anti-vax)

On a related note, I got the 50th anniversary Apollo 11 boxset there a couple of years ago and one thing it includes is a BBC debate from shortly after on the philosophical and social implications for mankind arising from travelling to another world. It's amazing how respectful the debate is, and how much it benefits from that (albeit it's a social debate rather than a political one, so it'll always be less charged)

Or you can take the infamous Life of Brian debate in 1979 (https://youtu.be/1ni559bHXDg) between John Cleese, Michael Palin, Malcolm Muggeridge and the Bishop of Southwark - the latter two argue in a more "modern style" (for want of a better word - personal attacks without making any real valid points - while the Pythons (and moderator Tim Rice) try engage in a genuine discussion. It's notable that the audience sees this almost straight away and sides with the Pythons. There's a very good background article on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Night,_Saturday_Morning) about the debate - for example "Cleese said [in 2013] that it left him bored and he realised that there was no attempt at a proper discussion, and no attempt to find any common ground."

I don't watch a huge amount of TV debates (or TV in general), but I don't think debates these days come close to this standard very often. I do think social media - 140 characters, block who you don't like, dismiss people as racist/right-wing/liberals/transphobes/TERFs instead of making a point, and so on - really does play into that.

And if that's the case, this sort of stuff is only going to grow in the coming years unfortunately, and not just in the US.

As I say, it can't be the only factor, but I think it is a big one.

I have no idea what you're talking about stu. Healthy, rational debate is alive and well in America. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ftSGWqNnc4)

[pineapple stu]

Good Lord...

[ontheotherhand]

That debate is also the reason why the States shouldn't always be allowed to control their own destiny......some of the creatures that get into power at the State level are horrendous altogether.

[dahamsta]

... some stuff ...

As much as I enjoy going through posts line by line, it's been a long day and I'm shagged out, so I'll keep this short. It's mostly a rebuttal, but not meant to be aggressive. Note that I have up-close and personal experience with this. I'm not going to go into detail on this right now beyond stating that it's not me, but it was someone close to me.

Non-trans people using pronouns are self-obsessed tossers. Nuff said.

I have no problem with male/female gender self-identification. Obviously there will be errors, and idiots, but if someone wants to live their life as a different gender, and it doesn't have an adverse affect on other people (excepting intolerance), I have no problem with that. Surgery is irrelevant, not least because it's ridiculously difficult to access publicly, ridiculously expensive privately, and extremely taxing both mentally and physically either way. And it should be noted that if those hurdles were lowered, it would make it much easier to sort the wheat from the chaff. It would also stop a lot of people from killing themselves.

Next, it's important to note that sex and gender are indeed not the same thing, and you're conflating them to a certain extent when you say that a sex change doesn't change your sex. And I'd add that, for you, it should be irrelevant. It's not really any of your business. You can probably rebut this by saying it isn't any of your business what that stupid American famous-for-being-famous woman did to her ass, and you're still entitled to comment on it, but I think that's different. I can't really put my finger on why it's different though, so I'll just shut up about that now.

On sport, I don't think trans people should compete with their chosen gender and I don't even think I should need to explain why in any detail. It's simply not fair and there isn't really a way to make it fair yet. End of story. I think most rational trans people would probably agree if it weren't for the fundamentalists shouting about it. They need to rein them in.

I think non-m/f genders are mostly nonsense. I could probably accept a "neutral" gender, because some people are almost certainly kind of in the middle, in much the same way some people just don't care about sex, but that's about my limit. My only experience of non-binary people is very limited, but I don't think I've ever come across one that wasn't clearly self-obsessed and doing it for karma. I don't care about them and I don't want to hear their pronouns.

And finally, it is absolutely possible to diagnose "transgenderism", in the form of gender dysphoria. I'm sure some people are misdiagnosed, and it's a fact that 1-3 per cent of trans people regret transitioning, or actually transition back. But it's a tiny number in the grand scheme of things, nearly a rounding error. The vast majority are happy with their transition, and feel much more comfortable in themselves.

[pineapple stu]

I'll keep this short. It's mostly a rebuttal, but not meant to be aggressive.
I don't think it is mostly a rebuttal, is it? We seem to agree everywhere except for gender self-identification from my reading. Granted, that's probably the biggest section, but still, a reasonable amount of common ground.

I think a couple of things I'd note though - I don't think it is possible to objectively diagnose gender dysphoria. The NHS in England was in court not long ago effectively as a result of this - it's been accused of making diagnoses far too easily, which is ultimately what a former client took them to court over. A fairly critical formal internal review, which was upheld in court, found its own staff said they were under pressure of being labelled transphobic if they didn't agree with diagnoses - one-third of staff had raised significant concerns around diagnoses, which led to the report and also to a fairly high staff resignation rate. This article on the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gids) (which usually buys into this sort of stuff) is a concerning read, suggesting (among other things) that more staff may have had similar concerns but were worried about voicing them.

I don't think that sits in with the idea that this is objectively diagnosable. That wouldn't be unique in medical terms - you can't diagnose whiplash as far as I'm aware, for example, and you could probably say the same for any sick cert for "stress" - and so it doesn't disprove its existence for sure. But I think my point remains that the inability to properly diagnose this is a big complicating factor.

People diagnosed with gender dysphoria are also a lot more likely to be on the autism spectrum and I'm not sure if that link has been explored sufficiently (see National Geographic Jan 2017, a fairly uncritical and ascientific issue on the topic, or also the Guardian report linked, which says "He [the report's author] worries that too much emphasis is placed on gender and not enough on sexuality – “the children are often gay” – and he continues to be anxious about co-morbidities such as anorexia, autism and history of trauma in its patients. “Some of the children are depressed. It’s said that it’s their gender that is the cause of this, but how do we know? And why don’t we try to treat that first?”")

I'd also be careful about saying that access to surgery (while I agree it would sort the wheat from the chaff, as you say) would "stop a lot of people from killing themselves". I think the suicide rate for people who have had such surgery has been shown to be still significantly above average, albeit that I'm not sure if it's reduced from what it would have been without surgery.

You also said that your post wasn't intended to be aggressive, and certainly I didn't feel that it was. I also don't claim to be completely right on this (and I know you're not suggesting that I am), so in these cases I think this sort of discussion can be quite useful - all the more so if it could be held in the greater public spectrum without people being dismissed as transphobic bigots or whatever other terms of abuse float about on this topic.

[ontheotherhand]

I'd agree with most of that dahamsta although it's an area I've been wary of wading into much as I just don't have the experience and it's pretty easy to find sources that could lead you down a multitude of paths, some fairly grim.

On sport I think we are all on firmer ground or should be. If trans people weren't winning gold medals in their chosen gender nobody would likely care but they are so it's become a flashpoint. It should be stopped for the sake of trans people everywhere. As with everything used in politics these days it's too easy to rile people up over edge cases which are too rare to be driving policy or opinion in the way they do. See "murdering babies v murdering women" above.

If 2% of all people are transgender then the elite athlete cohort is tiny. The use of hormone levels to determine which gender someone can compete with needs to be looked at. It seems to have been a reasonable attempt to draw a line but a more defined one probably needs to be drawn i.e. you compete with your original gender or not at all. Any elite athlete who needs to transition should be ok with that. If your identity as an athlete outweighs your gender identity I'd question your motivation a bit. Maybe that's unfair but that's life. Everyone makes sacrifices to pursue different goals.

But i'm ignorant enough and open to correction on any of that.

[seanfhear]

I think that after the considerable amount of time that abortion has been legal ( in the USA and the UK for example ) ~ ~ And that abortion has turned out to be much more widespread and sometimes much later along in the pregnancies ~ ~ Then is it a good idea to let Democracy have another look at this issue.

[ontheotherhand]

I think that after the considerable amount of time that abortion has been legal ( in the USA and the UK for example ) ~ ~ And that abortion has turned out to be much more widespread and sometimes much later along in the pregnancies ~ ~ Then is it a good idea to let Democracy have another look at this issue.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/

I'm not sure that the fact that abortions happen is a sound reason to review their legality Sean but while reported abortions do seem to have gone up after 1973 but they are now back down at around the same number according to the two agencies who track them.

Late stage abortions are ridiculously rare Sean unless you have some data or sources to show otherwise?

I think it would be grand to put it to a vote as the majority of people want access to them to be safe and legal. But that's not going to happen in the US at least.

[Real ale Madrid]

Non-trans people using pronouns are self-obsessed tossers. Nuff said.



But in large platforms or organizations be they work / sporting / Social media or whatever if only trans people identify their pro-nouns then that itself is a form of differentiation and the purpose of identification is promote inclusivity imo. Its a small gesture that on name badges / e-mail signatures etc. that everybody display their pro-nouns and I see it as a good thing generally.

I know on-one knows me personally on here but I have an unusual name - for years I got a good laugh out of a hospital letter or whatever if it was to refer to me as Ms. instead of Mr. as my name was difficult to assign! Recently on reflection I have wondered had I been someone struggling with my identification would I have found that so funny. Its a very small thing but it did made me think.

Anyway - people who give out about pro-nous are the very definition of snowflakes imo - would you be bothered like.

[pineapple stu]

I think things like "It's a small gesture", "It's to promote inclusivity", "It's anti-discriminatory" or "People who complain about them are snowflakes" are usually vacuous arguments which really discourage a proper and open discussion on a very controversial topic (for the various reasons noted above) to be honest.

Often there's an undertone of "Amn't I great for doing this?" more than anything else.

And when you have someone working in the NHS department on gender identity openly questioning whether they're even trying to treat the right thing, and openly noting the lack of critical analysis (or the presence of confirmation bias) that can go into diagnosing gender dysphoria, then you can see there's even an argument that unquestioning acceptance of pronouns (eg putting them in your e-mail as a small gesture and to promote inclusivity) or putting this across as something that can only be a great thing for people can actually be doing more harm than good.

[Real ale Madrid]

I think things like "It's a small gesture", "It's to promote inclusivity", "It's anti-discriminatory" or "People who complain about them are snowflakes" are usually vacuous arguments which really discourage a proper and open discussion on a very controversial topic (for the various reasons noted above) to be honest.
.

You’ve not addressed the point at all while dismissing it as vacuous. Fair enough if you don’t agree that Pro-nouns should only be present for example on name badges of trans people etc. but at least tell us why and address the issue of inclusivity. Have you canvassed Trans people on the issue for example?




Often there's an undertone of "Amn't I great for doing this?" more than anything else.
.

Certainly – but that works for both sides of the argument tbf – Amn’t I great to question everything!



And when you have someone working in the NHS department on gender identity openly questioning whether they're even trying to treat the right thing, and openly noting the lack of critical analysis (or the presence of confirmation bias) that can go into diagnosing gender dysphoria, then you can see there's even an argument that unquestioning acceptance of pronouns (eg putting them in your e-mail as a small gesture and to promote inclusivity) or putting this across as something that can only be a great thing for people can actually be doing more harm than good.

I don’t know what you are referring to here. For the life of me I can’t see how it would do more harm than good anyway. I’m struggling to see any harm in it at all. Again – would you be bothered like.

[pineapple stu]

You’ve not addressed the point at all while dismissing it as vacuous. Fair enough if you don’t agree that Pro-nouns should only be present for example on name badges of trans people etc. but at least tell us why and address the issue of inclusivity. Have you canvassed Trans people on the issue for example?
I'm not sure why I need to address the issue of inclusivity to be honest. I don't need to be inclusive about everything that someone believes about themselves. You might be anti-vax, for example, but I don't need to be inclusive of that - in fact, organisations spent a lot of time lately working out how best to exclude such views (until the State sorted the problem and said unvaccinated people wouldn't be able to fly out of the country and so on). "Inclusivity" shouldn't mean bypassing important rational debates.


I don’t know what you are referring to here. For the life of me I can’t see how it would do more harm than good anyway. I’m struggling to see any harm in it at all.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and suggest that you haven't read my earlier post which linked the Guardian article on the report a senior psychiatrist in the NHS' gender identity department drew up, where a number of serious concerns were flagged. That also follows on from the discussion on the suggestive power of social media and how that may inflate trans numbers given its lack of objective diagnosability.

Can I ask that you go back and read those before you dismiss my posts by saying "I don't know what you're referring to here" or suggesting all I'm doing is saying "Amn’t I great to question everything!"?

[Real ale Madrid]

I'm not sure why I need to address the issue of inclusivity to be honest. I don't need to be inclusive about everything that someone believes about themselves. You might be anti-vax, for example, but I don't need to be inclusive of that - in fact, organisations spent a lot of time lately working out how best to exclude such views (until the State sorted the problem and said unvaccinated people wouldn't be able to fly out of the country and so on). "Inclusivity" shouldn't mean bypassing important rational debates.


I'm not sure you can ignore the issue of inclusivity when it comes to pronouns. I know you think you'll never ever misgender someone because "evolution thought me otherwise" and I'm super dooper at identifying people but it does happen and it is harmful. Ignoring it doesn't seem rational to me. But go ahead and bypass what YOU feel is irrelevant and discuss what YOU feel is relevant.



or suggesting all I'm doing is saying "Amn’t I great to question everything!"?

I never said that. You suggested that some people who use Pronouns carry an undertone to their actions. I responded by agreeing and saying the same goes for people who like to question everything just for the sake of it - there is a similar undertone there imo.

[pineapple stu]

Can I again ask you to read the points I've made earlier in thread (and to which I've directed you) before you start answering what you think my point is?

Thanks.

[Real ale Madrid]

Can I again ask you to read the points I've made earlier in thread (and to which I've directed you) before you start answering what you think my point is?

Thanks.

I've read the thread.

[pineapple stu]

Then how come you're not able to refer to it, but instead call people snowflakes, insist I address things that don't need to be addressed, or make silly sarcastic comments which don't actually have a point?

Putting your pronouns in your email is silly in part because in an email I'm talking to you, which bypasses pronouns. I'm also trying to avoid labelling people as virtue signallers, but as I've just lost that battle, I think many people who do it do so because of how inclusive it makes them feel. That's the wrong reason to do anything.

But more than that, I think it trivialises what seems quite a complicated issue (as per the Guardian article you continue to ignore) where we're not even certain if the people being treated by the NHS for gender dysphoria are actually suffering from it, or depression or autism or even social media obsession. It seems rather unfair to effectively suppress proper debate on this topic (like you're trying to do by effectively taking as your starting point that gender dysphoria is always real), or to ignore the suggestion - by a leading psychiatrist working in this area - that actually it could often be a symptom of something else. There's still a high suicide rate for post-op trans people, which kind of ties in with the suggestion made that we might be treating the wrong thing. That would make it not a good thing to push people towards by trivialising the idea of adopting different pronouns and everything'll be great

And again, I don't have to be inclusive of everything a person thinks about themselves, as per the example I gave (and which again you ignored), so I'm not buying into mindless acceptance because "inclusion".

Over to you now to make a contribution without just labelling me as a snowflake or ignoring the various arguments I've taken the time to lay out in the thread. You don't have to agree with me, but you should be able to give a proper argument to back your position up. And you haven't even tried yet.

[dahamsta]

I think a couple of things I'd note though - I don't think it is possible to objectively diagnose gender dysphoria.

You could say that about a lot of mental illnesses; and yes, that means that I don't subscribe to the view that it isn't a form of mental illness. Being trans usually causes dysphoria, dysphoria is a mental illness (in my view at least), therefore it's mental illness. I'm sure I'd be lambasted for that view by hardcore trans activists, but I don't care. Otherwise what is transitioning, in whatever form that takes? It's a cure!

Anyway, misdiagnosis is a problem in all fields, some fields are relatively new or contentious, and some like psychopathy are both contentious and possible to "trick" if you're.... psychopathic. I'm not 100% sure that the person in my life that suffered from dysphoria isn't actually suffering from some other mental illness, but then I'm not a psychologist. But here's the thing: they are. So there's really nothing I can do but accept their word and hope for the best.

(It's worth noting that a lot of people in psychology went into the field because they had mental issues themselves. I'd regard that as a problem.)


But I think my point remains that the inability to properly diagnose this is a big complicating factor.

I think we just have to set a balance between people's word and diagnosis, and psychologists need to work on probabilities rather than certainties. We work on probabilities in loads of fields, including other fields of medicine, it's absolutely workable.


People diagnosed with gender dysphoria are also a lot more likely to be on the autism spectrum

You could probably say that about a huge number of people with (other) mental illness. I'm probably on the spectrum, although I've never been diagnosed. I wish I had been diagnosed at an early age and helped to develop the mechanisms I use to deal with it (basically just calendars and reminders) then, but thems the breaks.


I'd also be careful about saying that access to surgery (while I agree it would sort the wheat from the chaff, as you say) would "stop a lot of people from killing themselves". I think the suicide rate for people who have had such surgery has been shown to be still significantly above average, albeit that I'm not sure if it's reduced from what it would have been without surgery.

I haven't heard that, but it goes against the numbers I mentioned in my previous post (1-2.5% regret or go back). I think it IS a given that people that don't get some form of treatment in a timely fashion do kill themselves, so that's the one I'd concern myself with.

I appreciate your commentary, and I'm not really qualified to be citing statistics. All I can say is that I've been close to this, and it was clearly a nightmare for the person involved (and me!), and they say now that, basically, it "worked". And because of that, I've followed the subject. But I'm no expert.

[pineapple stu]

I don't think we're too far apart on our views in fairness adam.

I'm not entirely comfortable with simply taking a person's view on things - if they identify as black, do we accept that as well? What about people who identify as disabled (https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies)? Are we really helping by accepting what they say as real or should we (not necessarily you specifically; I don't expect you to grill the person you know till they're "fixed") be looking for a better way of addressing these issues? Is it really a cure?

On the suicide rates I mentioned, here's a sample Swedish study from 2011 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885) which has in its conclusion -


Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

Like yourself, I'm not an expert and I can only presume the study is as legit as it seems, but there's others around (here's one from the US (https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/59/3/1023/302037/Differences-in-All-Cause-Mortality-Among) flagging a mortality rate twice as high as normal, based off private insurance data)

I think though we can agree it's complicated, which is why I dislike the way it's being trivialised (glorified, almost) in the name of inclusion. And I'd be fairly sure that there's plenty of cases which are social media-driven in the same way that social media has been shown to drive belief in flat earth and anti-vax beliefs, and what do you do about those? Are they real because the person believes it? How do they know what gender dysphoria is?

[Real ale Madrid]

Then how come you're not able to refer to it
My posts on the topic are pretty short, yet I've referred to plenty of your posts and points - not sure why you are ignoring that but on we go....


but instead call people snowflakes, .
I think people who give out about others using pronouns are snowflakes. I think people who get invested in any issue for that matter, that does not affect them, and get upset, are snowflakes also. I didn't call you a snowflake directly but you've taken umbrage at the phrase, which is fine but I'm not changing my opinion on it.


or make silly sarcastic comments which don't actually have a point?
.
You started it with your " Amn't I great for doing this" jibe - when you post silly sarcastic comments like this then you can hardly be surprised if there is a rebuttal. In general people are not as fixated on this issue as you think. Most people just see, family, friends, and colleagues be it their own or others struggling with who they are. It is pretty much beyond dispute that mis-gendering people causes them real world pain.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5061456/ Why is it so controversial that a simple way to potentially alleviate this pain is for everyone that wishes to be clearer about how they identify themselves is allowed to do it? Should organizations be forced to do it? I’m not sure about that but I could be convinced. What I do know is that in competitive recruitment fields – the top graduates these days are migrating to companies with solid D&I groups. Companies need to be able to prove that their workplaces are equal in terms of the gender pay gap, have diverse workforces and are proactive in addressing any issues that this brings. If they can’t do this people are migrating to employers that do.



Putting your pronouns in your email is silly in part because in an email I'm talking to you, which bypasses pronouns. I'm also trying to avoid labelling people as virtue signalers, but as I've just lost that battle, I think many people who do it do so because of how inclusive it makes them feel. That's the wrong reason to do anything.

Putting your pronouns in your e-mail signature is definitely not silly. It's silly in your opinion. You raise an interesting point though about how inclusive it makes people feel. Maybe people just want to help as alluded to already. You’ve characterized the majority as virtue signalers – which you have zero evidence for anyway – and then concluded that virtue signaling is the wrong reason to do anything. Which is of course correct. There are virtue signalers on both sides of every debate – it’s easy to pick on those no matter where you sit on any issue.



But more than that, I think it trivialises what seems quite a complicated issue

Well if you think that anyone who uses pronouns or promotes their use is virtue signaling then of course it will follow that you think the issues are being trivialized. The basic premise of your argument falls down there straight away I think.



we're not even certain if the people being treated by the NHS for gender dysphoria are actually suffering from it, or depression or autism or even social media obsession. It seems rather unfair to effectively suppress proper debate on this topic (like you're trying to do by effectively taking as your starting point that gender dysphoria is always real), or to ignore the suggestion - by a leading psychiatrist working in this area - that actually it could often be a symptom of something else. There's still a high suicide rate for post-op trans people, which kind of ties in with the suggestion made that we might be treating the wrong thing. That would make it not a good thing to push people towards by trivializing the idea of adopting different pronouns and everything'll be great


There’s a lot in this. Fundamentally if someone was born a man and feels like a women they do not automatically have a mental illness. Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness. There may be plenty cases out there where, while being treated for GD, that it may be a symptom of something else, as alluded to in your article – not ignoring -- but the NHS and others are quite clear on that point. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

I also do not like linking Autism to Gender dysphoria either - there is zero hard evidence for this and it is far too early to make any concrete point on it. https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/what-is-autism/autism-and-gender-identity

There is some evidence to show a link between gender dysphoria and autism, and that autistic people may be more likely than other people to have gender dysphoria. However there is little evidence about the reason(s) why, and some recent research suggests the link between autism and gender dysphoria is not so clear. More research is needed. More research is also required to develop and test assessment tools, support and treatment for autistic people experiencing gender dysphoria.

There seems to be a characterization running throughout your posts and this paragraph in particular - if someone suffers from Gender Dysmorphia - then there is something "wrong" with them. Its as if you don't believe someone could be born a man and believe themselves to be a woman - because sure they could believe themselves to be black as well? That is as good a way to trivialize something as anything I've said.



Over to you now to make a contribution without just labelling me as a snowflake or ignoring the various arguments I've taken the time to lay out in the thread. You don't have to agree with me, but you should be able to give a proper argument to back your position up. And you haven't even tried yet.

Some of the basis of your arguments are pretty flimsy tbf. You characterized Marta Kauffman's apology over "Friends" as Grovelling. It was nothing of the sort. She, with the benefit of hindsight, accepted that they should not have referred to a female character as a male. It was a simple enough recognition of what they themselves perceived to be an error. I doubt that she cares either way but I guess she wants Friends to remain syndicated on TV in many locations and shown on Netflix so I doubt her motivations were relevant to the movement but to say she "Groveled" at the court of public opinion? It doesn't read like that to me.

You've also used Charlize Therons kids to help validate your point of view. Despite probably having never met her or her kids. Its none of your business anyway how anyone looks after their own kids - would you like people telling you how you should live your life?

[pineapple stu]

At the risk of getting into a tedious multi-quote battle, I'll try pick out some of the main things here.


I think people who give out about others using pronouns are snowflakes.
Your very first post on this barged in with "People who give out about pro-nous are the very definition of snowflakes imo" - no context or discussion. Just a dismissal of people as snowflakes. You can do that if you want, but it does make it harder to take your posts seriously when that's your opening argument.


Why is it so controversial that a simple way to potentially alleviate this pain is for everyone that wishes to be clearer about how they identify themselves is allowed to do it?
Well first off, again, an e-mail signature makes no sense for this, as I've suggested. You don't use pronouns when talking to someone in an e-mail. So to put them there is people thinking they're helping but not really actually doing anything. So what's the point? Adam described people who do this as self-obsessed, which ties in with social media in general making people more self-obsessed, so I'd agree with him on that.

But if we're inclusive of every little thing people think about themselves, are we not in danger of doing more harm than good? You don't (or shouldn't) indulge kids in everything they want for example; sometimes saying "no" brings pain, but can be far better in the longer term. And given rising mental health issues in modern times, maybe society could do with being told "no" every now and again. Are we just perpetuating the problem rather than addressing it? Are people really suffering from this condition, or is it a form of social media groupthink? How do we/they even know? This is the sort of debate - and there's probably more nuanced arguments too, but time doesn't permit - that this approach can smother.


Should organizations be forced to do it? I’m not sure about that but I could be convinced. What I do know is that in competitive recruitment fields – the top graduates these days are migrating to companies with solid D&I groups. Companies need to be able to prove that their workplaces are equal in terms of the gender pay gap, have diverse workforces and are proactive in addressing any issues that this brings. If they can’t do this people are migrating to employers that do.
Organisations should maybe be forced to make you add pronouns to your signature? Wow. Forcing people what to think is a good way towards rational constructive thought, isn't it?

The D&I stuff is getting off topic again, but it's in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling cult, and I sense you're fully invested in it. The irony in everyone becoming diverse is that if we all do it the same way, then we become the exact same, and can't break away from that mindset. (I'm reminded of this article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/07/hipsters-all-look-same-man-inadvertently-confirms/) on the hipster who sued a newspaper for using his stock image in an article on how all hipsters look the same, only to find out it wasn't actually him in the photo, thereby proving the article's point - the more diverse people think they are, the less diverse they actually are.) I'm sure there's merit in the basic idea, but taken to the conclusions I've seen, with D&I groups that aren't remotely diverse and have no-one on them to bring balance to the discussions, is something that needs to be examined more closely.

Gender pay gap is even further off topic, but calculating a basic average hourly rate for your employees is far, far too coarse a mechanism to have any real meaning. I think it falls down by aiming for equality of outcome (a Communist-style utopia where everyone's the same) rather than equality of opportunity. If you and I have the same opportunities and I achieve more with them and earn more as a result, that's not an inequality. I don't think there's any real evidence that, for example, women are routinely offered 80% of men's pay just because. But people are different, and that will feed into pay rates. Is it really a problem, for example, if more women than men want to take a career break to raise a family, and lose out on pay as a result?

So I think some critical introspection there might be no harm on your part.


Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness.
It really is hard to see what else it could be in fairness. And given the criticisms of the NHS already discussed (where there's a very serious suggestion of confirmation bias towards identifying gender dysphoria, and bullying of those who don't agree), are they entirely trustworthy in that regard?


I also do not like linking Autism to Gender dysphoria either - there is zero hard evidence for this
Yet your own quote says "There is some evidence to show a link between gender dysphoria and autism" (my emphasis). Just because you mightn't like a conclusion doesn't mean you can dismiss it.


Its as if you don't believe someone could be born a man and believe themselves to be a woman - because sure they could believe themselves to be black as well? That is as good a way to trivialize something as anything I've said.
But you're just dismissing my point here with no reason. Can I identify as black? Why/why not? What about the example I linked about people identifying as disabled? Or someone who identifies as Korean (https://news.sky.com/story/oli-london-british-influencer-defends-identifying-as-korean-after-surgery-to-look-like-bts-star-12344765)? Why should identifying as a different gender be ok while other cases (eg identifying as someone 20 years younger) aren't ok? Where do you draw the line? Or are you just making it up as you go along?


You've also used Charlize Therons kids to help validate your point of view. Despite probably having never met her or her kids. Its none of your business anyway how anyone looks after their own kids - would you like people telling you how you should live your life?
Again, you're just trying to shut down discussion by telling me I'm wrong rather than try engage in the matter. I have no problems in thinking that raising a three-year-old boy as a girl because he once said "I'm not a boy any more" is wrong. Three year olds repeat anything they hear and don't necessarily know what it is they're saying. Social services should be investigating that case before the kid is put on a course of puberty blockers they will in all probability end up regretting.

[Real ale Madrid]

And given rising mental health issues in modern times, maybe society could do with being told "no" every now and again.

Do you think there is more Mental health issues now or is society just more aware of what mental health is? I think its the latter - primarily down to people being told no IMO.
No, society says you can't be gay.
No, society says you can't have children out of marriage.
No, you are a man - society says you can't cry.
No, you are made a boy - society says you can't be a girl?
I very much take issue with the idea that all Trans people are suffering from some form of Gender dysphoria and that in its self is a mental illness. The conversation has to be more nuanced than that.

In the spirt of critical self introspection as you call it , I apologize unreservedly for the snowflake line - there is no need for that and while I fundamentally disagree with virtually everything you say to be fair you are sincere in your posts. I won't delete them but leave them there as a reminder to myself to not to be such a wally.

And we are going around in circles now a bit so won't reply anymore.

[pineapple stu]

Do you think there is more Mental health issues now or is society just more aware of what mental health is? I think its the latter
I don't think that stacks up.

What you're trying to argue there is that there's the same actual incidence of mental health issues as always, that numbers are only going up because of increased diagnosis, but that despite improved treatment (let's assume that any care is better than no care), suicide rates in society are increasing. That doesn't make sense.

You are made white - maybe your transphobic e-mail signature is holding people back from being black? "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command" - George Orwell in 1984. Maybe he was only a couple of decades out?

Also - "I won't delete them [your posts]"? No harm, but you've a real arrogance in your tone. From calling people snowflakes (retraction noted), to being open to forcing people what to put on their e-mails, to telling me that I can't discuss Charlize Theron effectively just "because", to saying that you won't delete my posts (presumably sarcastic given you're not a mod in this forum, but still, it's the thought that counts) - for someone so bought into inclusion, you're not remotely inclusive of any views that don't agree with yours. There's a huge contrast with the very respectful discussion I was able to have with dahamsta, even though he also disagreed with me on certain things.

Incidentally, on the Kauffman/Friends thing, I think there's an irony that people are piling on Kauffman's transgender character without bothering to ask their pronouns. As Eddie Izzard has said "If I am in boy mode, then 'he', or girl mode, 'she'". But the internet, as it so often does, has seen an easy pile on and gone for it.

[Real ale Madrid]

I don't think that stacks up.

What you're trying to argue there is that there's the same actual incidence of mental health issues as always, that numbers are only going up because of increased diagnosis, but that despite improved treatment (let's assume that any care is better than no care), suicide rates in society are increasing. That doesn't make sense.


Are they? I'd equate increase in suicide rates to people living longer in general - but the suicide rates worldwide are varied.
https://ourworldindata.org/suicide#:~:text=The%20World%20Health%20Organizatio n%20(WHO,die%20from%20suicide%20every%20year.&text=That's%20one%20person%20every%2040,interventi ons%2C%20suicides%20can%20be%20prevented.


Most countries in Europe have seen a decline in suicide rates; Asia too has seen impressive declines. Across other regions, the trend has been more varied.



but you've a real arrogance in your tone.

Ha! From the person who thinks " Maybe Society should be told No every once in a while" - I'll take that as a compliment. A real everyone else is wrong and I'm right vibe about that line. You come across as fairly arrogant yourself at times Stu, so much so that I could almost mistake you for a Corkman! (That's a joke btw - maybe just a Kerryman)


to saying that you won't delete my posts (presumably sarcastic given you're not a mod in this forum, but still, it's the thought that counts)
.

You've picked me up wrong there (probably my wording) but I meant that I would delete my own references to snowflakes - not your posts.



There's a huge contrast with the very respectful discussion I was able to have with dahamsta, even though he also disagreed with me on certain things.
.
Respect is a two way street. Of the things you accuse me of here I could easily say the same for you - you routinely disregard points you disagree with not just on this topic but on other issues where we've clashed. I've expressed regret over the snowflake line that was a poor start which probably contributed more than anything to be fair. Mea culpa again on that.



Incidentally, on the Kauffman/Friends thing, I think there's an irony that people are piling on Kauffman's transgender character without bothering to ask their pronouns. As Eddie Izzard has said "If I am in boy mode, then 'he', or girl mode, 'she'". But the internet, as it so often does, has seen an easy pile on and gone for it.

Where is the internet pile on? I had to look up the Friends thing - the only decent article I could find on it was via the Daily Mail - same for the the Charlize Theron stuff. I mean who the hell cares anyway what some random on twitter thinks about, well anything tbh. I'm not on SM much - don't do Fb or Insta or Tiktok - I have a twitter but I've anything popular culture related muted. Love Island? - forget it. Doesn't certain SM skew your perspective - I'd accuse myself of the same thing probably.


to telling me that I can't discuss Charlize Theron effectively
I never said that - I said you shouldn't comment, without knowing about other people's family life. Theron's children could have displayed persistent Gender Dysmoria over a sustained period of time and maybe she only threw out a soundbite for the media Maybe she's a complete loon who wants to have a daughter no matter what the means - Its probably the latter, but we really know nothing of the situation so I'm not sure what the value is referencing celebrity culture in debates like this. Its not "shutting down debate" to point this out - you are completely free to refer to anything you wish.

[sbgawa]

Do you think there is more Mental health issues now or is society just more aware of what mental health is? I think its the latter - primarily down to people being told no IMO.
No, society says you can't be gay.
No, society says you can't have children out of marriage.
No, you are a man - society says you can't cry.
No, you are made a boy - society says you can't be a girl?
I very much take issue with the idea that all Trans people are suffering from some form of Gender dysphoria and that in its self is a mental illness. The conversation has to be more nuanced than that.

In the spirt of critical self introspection as you call it , I apologize unreservedly for the snowflake line - there is no need for that and while I fundamentally disagree with virtually everything you say to be fair you are sincere in your posts. I won't delete them but leave them there as a reminder to myself to not to be such a wally.

And we are going around in circles now a bit so won't reply anymore.



Literally every second advert on TV , every programme with more than a few characters and every corporate entity buying into Pride Month (used to be a day) says you can be Gay, this is a non event in society anymore

Children outside Marridge????? Maybe 20 years ago it was an issue , it is now the norm

You cant cry? The entire world spends its time now telling people to embrace their feelings and share etc etc.

There is more mental health "problems" in society now IMO simply because people who don't have genuine mental health problems are encouraged to classify themselves as having mental health problems where before they would have been told to cop on. Its probably a price worth paying to make sure those with actual real problems are encouraged to deal with them but their are an awful lot of attention seekers out there.
Footballers who get abused on social media claim their mental health is being affected, nonsense in most cases but a good deflection tactic if you have done something wrong

[dahamsta]

Real ale Madrid, you seem to be raising your need / want to use personal pronouns because of your gender-neutral name above all else. I wouldn't dispute that want or need and I don't think anyone else here has. And if people have to cite their pronouns because of a company policy - which they shouldn't IMO, unless it's to be inclusive in an organisation that's directly affected by these issues - that's perfectly fine too, they can't help it. All people here are saying, I think, is that in their personal experience, the majority of non-trans people that cite their personal pronouns are doing it for karma. That's my experience anyway, and that's clearly pstu's experience.

You're allowed to cite your pronouns. We're allowed to think that people that cite their pronouns without a need, to be "with-it", are muppets.

[Real ale Madrid]

You're allowed to cite your pronouns. We're allowed to think that people that cite their pronouns without a need, to be "with-it", are muppets.

But I don't need to cite my pronouns ( I've never done it anyway ) - if I choose to (for the various reasons discussed here) - does that make me a Muppet? I think the conversation has to be more nuanced than that tbh, notwithstanding that there are plenty Muppets around. But not everyone is a virtue signaler either.

[Real ale Madrid]

Literally every second advert on TV , every programme with more than a few characters and every corporate entity buying into Pride Month (used to be a day) says you can be Gay, this is a non event in society anymore

Children outside Marridge????? Maybe 20 years ago it was an issue , it is now the norm

You cant cry? The entire world spends its time now telling people to embrace their feelings and share etc etc.

There is more mental health "problems" in society now IMO simply because people who don't have genuine mental health problems are encouraged to classify themselves as having mental health problems where before they would have been told to cop on. Its probably a price worth paying to make sure those with actual real problems are encouraged to deal with them but their are an awful lot of attention seekers out there.
Footballers who get abused on social media claim their mental health is being affected, nonsense in most cases but a good deflection tactic if you have done something wrong

What I was getting at there sbgawa is that our understanding of major societal issues is getting better and things that were once frowned upon / deemed unacceptable are now not.

Although I'm not sure why you are categorizing Mental Health issues as "problems", and I take absolute exception to people with potential Mental Health problems being told to "Cop On" as you put it. That's a backwards step.

[sbgawa]

What I was getting at there sbgawa is that our understanding of major societal issues is getting better and things that were once frowned upon / deemed unacceptable are now not.

Although I'm not sure why you are categorizing Mental Health issues as "problems", and I take absolute exception to people with potential Mental Health problems being told to "Cop On" as you put it. That's a backwards step.


I think if you read my post objectively its clear i meant real "Mental health" problems but skipped typing the Mental health bit.

Regarding telling people to cop on my point is that not telling people to cop on results in scenarios like Footballers who miss a penalty and get abuse on social media to claim it is "affecting their mental health" ............i'm calling BS on that they should be told to cop on, its in most cases a pure deflection and a cry for sympathy "poor me" rather than taking criticism for missing a penalty.
I did also make the point that not telling the attention seakers and deflectors to Cop on resulting in many more people claiming mental health problems MIGHT be a price worth paying if it means those with real mental health problems come forward.
The problem is you literally cant call BS on someone claiming mental health problems no matter how obvious it is they are BS or you get slammed. Its part of the cancel culture

[passinginterest]

Without getting too much into the debate, I'd tend to be fairly liberal leaning in my views on most matters. There's some good points raised from the perspective of social media bubbles and how divisive they can become. I agree that there's no benefit to cancel culture and not allowing concerns to be raised or issues to be discussed. I think we should probably be a little bit self aware in that foot.ie itself is somewhat of a bubble, we can self congratulate on the ability to have and open conversation, but at the same time, even though views may differ, we're in a sphere of predominantly straight white males in their 30s and 40s.

The key to most cultural change and the voice that tends to be most important is the persons directly impacted. In the abortion debate that's women, in the trans debate that's trans people. I've noticed more people stating their preferred pronouns in our work emails, and it's being led by members of the LGBTQ+ group, if they see a benefit and have a preference for stating pronouns then I'd have no real problem with seeing it rolled out as standard. As Real ale has pointed out, the ideas of what's acceptable and not have changed significantly and rapidly and that's mainly due to listening to the groups that felt marginalised, it's not so long ago that homosexuality was still illegal in Ireland. We have to trust that as a society we can self regulate enough to realise that it's completely counter productive to let everyone and anyone self identify as whatever they like, there's always going to be extremes on both sides, but it certainly feels like in Ireland over the last few decades we've managed to liberalise in many ways without causing the deep societal divisions we've seen elsewhere.

Sometimes moving to quickly can be part of the issue, and that's why the lack of political extremes here is a good thing, but we do need to be wary of and aware of those that become increasingly diesnfranchised and resort to the extremes. I've got some "friends" on facebook that have gone mad on conspiracy thoeries and the like, but I don't block them, I find it useful and informative to see what's happening in those circles and I think if we didn't move so quickly to shut down those views we might spot issues coming a bit more quickly. Certainly in the US those bubbles made a huge cohort blind to the rise of Turmpian politics and we saw something similar with the certainty in more liberal circles that Brexit couldn't happen.

[Real ale Madrid]

I think if you read my post objectively its clear i meant real "Mental health" problems but skipped typing the Mental health bit.

Regarding telling people to cop on my point is that not telling people to cop on results in scenarios like Footballers who miss a penalty and get abuse on social media to claim it is "affecting their mental health" ............i'm calling BS on that they should be told to cop on, its in most cases a pure deflection and a cry for sympathy "poor me" rather than taking criticism for missing a penalty.
I did also make the point that not telling the attention seakers and deflectors to Cop on resulting in many more people claiming mental health problems MIGHT be a price worth paying if it means those with real mental health problems come forward.
The problem is you literally cant call BS on someone claiming mental health problems no matter how obvious it is they are BS or you get slammed. Its part of the cancel culture

I'm always fascinated by who's doing the slamming in instances like this? I must be oblivious to this stuff. What do you mean? If some randomer on Fb / Twitter or foot.ie for that matter "Slams" your opinion - why the hell would you give a cr@p?

[sbgawa]

I'm always fascinated by who's doing the slamming in instances like this? I must be oblivious to this stuff. What do you mean? If some randomer on Fb / Twitter or foot.ie for that matter "Slams" your opinion - why the hell would you give a cr@p?

Exactly my point when it comes to the footballers complaining about their mental health being affected by people on social media calling them crap etc for missing penos or whatever.
But when was the last time you saw a media outlet actually call out this BS.

The slamming i'm talking about is mainstream media jumping on people who dare go against the consensus as they endeavour to be populist.

[Real ale Madrid]

Exactly my point when it comes to the footballers complaining about their mental health being affected by people on social media calling them crap etc for missing penos or whatever.
.

Why would it be ok for SM to pile onto a footballer over anything let alone a penalty miss? I can't imagine that being ideal.

[pineapple stu]

Are they? I'd equate increase in suicide rates to people living longer in general - but the suicide rates worldwide are varied.
https://ourworldindata.org/suicide#:~:text=The%20World%20Health%20Organizatio n%20(WHO,die%20from%20suicide%20every%20year.&text=That's%20one%20person%20every%2040,interventi ons%2C%20suicides%20can%20be%20prevented.

Well here's a study on suicide rates in Ireland from 1864 to 1921 (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-open/article/effect-of-the-first-world-war-on-suicide-rates-in-ireland-an-investigation-of-the-18641921-suicide-trends/94D7889373F6C3885D237D4840A52979) - average is 2.5 per 100,000. Here's the same for recent years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Ireland#Statistics) - average is 10.8 per 100,000. You can for sure make the argument that people living longer gives you more chance to commit suicide (but then 15-24 is the biggest age bracket for suicide), or that a stigma in the olden days led to under-reporting, or what have you, but it's still a long way to go to make up that difference (and more, in fact, if you allow for better treatment today)

I think one other thing I would add on this rush to put your pronouns everywhere is that it reinforces the idea that if you question yourself, gender dysphoria is the most likely cause and changing your pronouns may even make things all right again. But as the HSE report showed, it's far from clear as to whether people presenting at the HSE aren't in fact gay or have autism (or, from elsewhere, if they haven't just been reading too much one-dimensional social media). In that case, reinforcing this idea could be actively dangerous as it leads people down one road only, and away from other possible routes that could help. You say that people do it because it could help - but does it? Really? I don't buy it. It's more likely, as a general trend (e-mails/social media) to lead to social media group think and do more harm than good. But I don't see any balanced discussion around the topic when it arises - it's just, as damahsta suggests, "This is good, yay".

This is a complicated area, and yes, it needs a nuanced discussion, in a number of directions. That discussion isn't going to happen on an e-mail signature though.

[pineapple stu]

I'm always fascinated by who's doing the slamming in instances like this? I must be oblivious to this stuff. What do you mean? If some randomer on Fb / Twitter or foot.ie for that matter "Slams" your opinion - why the hell would you give a cr@p?
Bit confused here - you seem to be suggesting that social media bullying doesn't exist? Or are you querying the real level of its impact? I think to reduce it to "some randomer" is to miss the point a bit. I don't think sbgawa is talking about one person disagreeing with you.

John Oliver has a good interview with Monica Lewinsky (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7Eh6JTKIg&t=1014s) on the very real impact of public shaming on social media. It's a pity that 20+ years later, you can see JK Rowling going through something similar. Yes, Lewinski and Rowling are two very very high-profile people, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at a lower profile level too.

[Real ale Madrid]

Bit confused here - you seem to be suggesting that social media bullying doesn't exist? Or are you querying the real level of its impact? I think to reduce it to "some randomer" is to miss the point a bit. I don't think sbgawa is talking about one person disagreeing with you.

John Oliver has a good interview with Monica Lewinsky (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7Eh6JTKIg&t=1014s) on the very real impact of public shaming on social media. It's a pity that 20+ years later, you can see JK Rowling going through something similar. Yes, Lewinski and Rowling are two very very high-profile people, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at a lower profile level too.

If you maybe read what I was referring to :



The problem is you literally cant call BS on someone claiming mental health problems no matter how obvious it is they are BS or you get slammed. Its part of the cancel culture

Slamming someone on social media calling BS on Mental Health? who does that? You are not the only one confused.

My literal next post makes reference to SM pile ons being bad.

[sbgawa]

Why would it be ok for SM to pile onto a footballer over anything let alone a penalty miss? I can't imagine that being ideal.

I didn't say it was ok to pile onto a footballer over anything , people who do that on social media are sad losers.
My point was that when it happens (and it does) and the footballers start complaining that it is affecting their mental health it is in my opinion simply BS and an attempt to change the narrative from whatever mistake they made to a new narrative which is "Poor me look at my anguish"

[John83]

I think they get sent some pretty vile stuff. I think "it's affecting my mental health" is kind of a shortcut for "I've received death threats with nasty racial overtones because I kicked a football slightly wrong and it's freaking me out". I'm sure you get the odd PR consultant sticking their oar in, but I'd rather err on the side of the victim in these situations. To summarize the summary: nuke twitter from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[tetsujin1979]

The genie is long out of the bottle where twitter (and social media in general) is concerned. If twitter was discontinued in the morning, something else would take its place.