If a coach was doping teen athletes with test without their knowledge or coercing them in to it, hell even misleading them to do it, I'm pretty sure I would expect jail time, assault charges etc. And you would probably be in favour as well. But because attacking this feels like an attack on your political narrative you feel the need to spin it inside of it and downplay this. And don't even try the "this is a medical…
I think I'd support jail time for this abuse, FWIW (to be fair I've only read the one article). I'm reacting to the gendered reasoning among the poster above. It's bad because it's an unnecessary medical process used (apparently) as a punishment, not because it stole his manhood or whatever. I'm fine if you're super upset. But if you're MORE upset because of the gendering interaction, that's wrong. The poster above c…
> It's bad because it's an unnecessary medical process used (apparently) as a punishment, not because it stole his manhood or whatever
Why do you get to decide whether it’s bad or not that the boy loses his “manhood”? What if he (gasp) likes being male?
Are you saying it’s not inherently bad to rob men of their masculinity?
Testicular cancer is a bad example, but it looks like from some quick googling in USA ~42k women die each year from breast cancer while ~33k men die from prostate cancer. Overall "cancer mortality is higher among men than women (196.8 per 100,000 men and 139.6 per 100,000 women)"[1] Significantly higher. Men on average live 5 less years than women. Cancer research funding relative to annual deaths[2] shows breast can…
I am well aware of prostate cancer being a bigger threat to men than testicular cancer, but the comment mentioned one and not the other. It is not my responsibility to improve the arguments of men's rights activists. Plus I felt that "men's right activists are biased" was a more productive retort than "men's right activists are both biased and ignorant".
> It is not my responsibility to improve the arguments of men's rights activists.
It is your responsibility, unless you’re not arguing to find the truth and just want to feel like you’re right.
The I love when people have perfect names. The victims lawyers name is Ouchi. This is pretty tragic, reading the article there is no way this is an isolated incident
Wang, Oh, Ouchi... Asian names can be hilarious for an English speaker. The incident itself is not that hilarious on the other hand.
> and went ahead with a treatment against scientific evidence Despite a lack of scientific evidence not against. Don't think this has been tested and disproved in a scientific manner. And for ethical reasons probably won't be. A relationship between male hormones and aggressive behavior while sometimes questioned is generally well supported. Yes that's not ODD but one can easily see the train of thought here. What th…
> A relationship between male hormones and aggressive behavior while sometimes questioned is generally well supported. That a relationship exist is well supported. The cause and effect, as per more modern research, however is one that more recent (ie > last 30 years) has found to be quite different than previous assumptions. Throw in a random number of test subjects in a room, observe aggressiveness, and then measure…
Aggressive dogs get their balls cut off and it seems to work. Would there be a reason to assume that it doesn't work in humans in a similar way?
I puked in my mouth after reading this. Didn't expect this level of retardation on HN.
Please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN. You've been doing it repeatedly and we ban that sort of account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Looks like this article is keeping you quite busy today!
> Gender is not a social construct. Yes, it is. > Your gender is the ability to become pregnant or to impregnate someone No, that's reproductive function. Which is closely related to (but different from) biological sex, and not particularly closely related to gender. > What's socially constructed is how your gender is presented No, gender presentation (and gender identity, which is related to but different from prese…
That's a decent, if slightly confused, defense/description of the view of gender and sex prescribed by Critical Gender Theory, however, despite its academic sounding terminology and many PhDs, critical gender theory remains unscientific hokem.
1. It's not Critical Gender Theory, though Critical Gender Theory uses broadly similar definitions for the subset of those things which it thinks are worthy of discussion, it's just the fairly common language to distinguish the innate physical (sex broadly, reproductive function for the particular subset you raised), internal self image (gender identity), externally ascribed status (gender), and behavior (gender presentation), and neutral as to material as opposed to conceptual relationships. CGT is opinionated about the material relationships, holding (as I understand it, but CGT isn't something I've more than casually encountered) that gender presentation is socially learned behavior produced by social gender ideas and other aspects of personal social context, gender identity (which CGT doesn’t, IIRC, talk much about directly, but recognizes insofar as it recognizes that people have a social identity related to the social construct of gender) as a product of gender presentation and social gender stereotypes (reversing a common progressive view that gender identity is a fundamental, immutable or nearly so, aspect of identity amd that gender presentation is an expression of identity, to which social gender images may play a part.)
2. It (my post, not Critical Gender Theory) is not supposed to be scientific; it's pretty much all definition of terms, which precedes the ability to even discuss observations of facts, which in turn precedes the ability to discuss hypothesized generalizations from observed facts and empirical tests of those generalizations.
> Gender is not a social construct. Yes, it is. > Your gender is the ability to become pregnant or to impregnate someone No, that's reproductive function. Which is closely related to (but different from) biological sex, and not particularly closely related to gender. > What's socially constructed is how your gender is presented No, gender presentation (and gender identity, which is related to but different from prese…
I'm a bit confused how gender presentation can be not a social construct but gender itself can be a social construct. It seems to me that gender presentation depends on gender.
> I'm a bit confused how gender presentation can be not a social construct
Gender presentation is behavior.
> but gender itself can be a social construct
Gender is socially ascribed status.
> It seems to me that gender presentation depends on gender.
Depending on the basis on which gender is acribed, it could well be the other way around.
I have seen a cop order a medic to give sedative to a human that was being choked by said cops for more than 10 minutes (he was basically already dead when they injected him). Search for Tony Timpa on Youtube if you want to see the video. And they were joking while killing him. And last but not least, they all kept their jobs. All humans can be bastards.
> And last but not least, they all kept their jobs Police unions are some of the most powerful organizations. Not being able to fire bad actors is one of the worst parts of unions. I've never understood why there hasn't been a movement to reform them. Their coworkers get stuck with them too and bringing the whole unit down. Instead we're always sold some nostalgic narrative of past golden eras of unions. Glossing ove…
It is more that their definition of bad actor is different. Cops that break rank and complain and testify are fired or demoted. Cops that do that stuff are promoted.
> A relationship between male hormones and aggressive behavior while sometimes questioned is generally well supported. That a relationship exist is well supported. The cause and effect, as per more modern research, however is one that more recent (ie > last 30 years) has found to be quite different than previous assumptions. Throw in a random number of test subjects in a room, observe aggressiveness, and then measure…
Aggressive dogs get their balls cut off and it seems to work. Would there be a reason to assume that it doesn't work in humans in a similar way?
Yes, because they tried that in the past on violent criminals back in the less ethical days. They also tried cutting out the Amygdala and nearby parts of the brain.
The result was not great for either. The more aggressive an individual were the smaller the effect is. Testosterone also get secreted by other areas of the body so you also need to add suppressive drugs for that. Biggest effect was measured by chemically removing testosterone for women as they have the smallest amount to begin with. Going from above average testosterone in men to below average gave no results. Castrating the most violent criminal, usually against their will, has some studies showing minor results while others no results.
There is something called the challenge hypothesis. The theory is that testosterone acts as a modulating effect for managing social status. When an individual suddenly gain status the body reacts by secreting testosterone. Testosterone in turn regulate how much energy an individual will spend on behavior to retain that status. For animals that gain and maintain status by exclusively aggression, this then correlate nicely with testosterone. Reducing a male dogs testosterone would reduce the amount of effort they will spend to defend their status against other male dogs, and since dogs are very territorial, there is ample of opportunities where such behavior occurs. However for very aggressive dogs the effect will be much smaller, so its not a solution in those cases and the solution instead tend to be euthanasia.
Social status for humans is massively more complex, and the relation to violent crime even more so.