It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness • Hacker News Board

Re: It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness

#321

Post by brnt » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #120

brnt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently read the story of a detransitioner and the statistic that about a third falls of the radar (and due missing their hormones, almost certainly are unhappy about the treatment). Social media are implicated in the spread of these ideas (all ideas), and the detransitioner pleaded for better info from professionals and an end to doctor neutrality for underage trans people. Changed my mind a bit.

idk I got a stapled packet of info from my provider and the effects are listed on Wikipedia these days for the stuff I'm on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminizing_hormone_therapy#Eff... It's a tradeoff. At least we can all agree that adults have the right to transition under an Informed Consent model. Countries like the UK, without IC, are hellholes for trans medical care. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1eWIshUz…

This is in the NL. Yes, they got a pile of folders, but in retrospect they would have wanted psychiatric care, because these issues were not treated and instead channelled into gender disphoria.

Re: It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness

#322

Post by zozbot234 » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

maxbond wrote: post #318

notadev wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it’s from 1984, but it’s considered a word itself as far as I can tell. I was using it as “Deliberately ambiguous and contradictory language used to mislead and manipulate the public.” Heterosexuality is the norm, it is the default. Heteronormativity is some nonsense phrase that is used in place of “normal” to try and draw a false equivalency between normal and abnormal. It is intended to muddy the waters and…

There's nothing ambiguous or misleading, what you're actually objecting to is the concrete and specific use of language to describe ideas you don't like and which you don't want to see proliferate. You aren't objecting to people being mislead, you're objecting to people understanding. Do give 1984 a read, I think you'll find the irony that you are appropriating a term used in that book in order to invert it's meaning…

Heterosexuality being prevalent within the population (note that I purposefully avoid idioms like "X is the norm" as ambiguous, especially in this context) is merely the flip side of LGBTQIA+ folks being a minority. Now, a minority can have a robust subculture - and one can certainly make that claim about LGBTQ identity today - but that doesn't somehow make it into not-a-minority.

Social and cultural norms are beside the point here; in fact, the most traditional societies are those that tend to feature the most salient spaces for same-sex quasi-romantic affection and emotionality, with such things as compadrazgo and sworn brotherhood/sisterhood. So it's just not clear how "heteronormativity" is supposed to be an internally coherent concept.

Re: It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness

#323

Post by blueflow » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

ryanbrunner wrote: post #301

blueflow wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For people with your attitude, yes.

To be clear, I'm making a descriptive and not a prescriptive statement. I'm not saying that people should conform to societal norms, just that right now they do (and that doesn't seem like a trivial thing to change).

I'm sorry, it should have been:

For people with that attitude, yes.

Re: It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness

#324

Post by maxbond » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

rendall wrote: post #312

maxbond wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard some men say things about women when they weren't around that I find appalling; I've had to work on eliminating misogyny from my own thinking, and it is a work in progress; I'm well aware of men and the toxicity that often goes along with them. The narrative you have presented is frequently weaponized, specifically by the adherents to the ideology of Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism, to argue that tra…

> The narrative you have presented is frequently weaponized... Indeed. This is both true, and a non-sequitur. Bad-faith arguers exist. Let us acknowledge the fact that some people will reprehensibly refer to every trans woman as a "man in a dress". Let's assume the best about each other. If you're trying to say that everyone is a TERF who points out that some men (again, not trans women) will take advantage, or that…

> [Y]ou're not addressing the concern, but dismissing it.

You're right, I should have done better there. To me, until this comment where you described this as "reprehensible", it sounded like you were employing "just asking questions" rhetoric, because you were asking all the same questions as TERFs, and to me it appeared you were only holding back the transphobic conclusions. However, that I should have done a better job assuming good faith on your part, and I apologize.

> This is both true, and a non-sequitur.

It isn't a non-sequitur though, I'm explaining to you what my issue is. If you were aware of the context around this narrative the whole time, you could addressed it instead of implying I was being disingenuous; the best-faith interpretation I could see was that you didn't understand my objection, so I added more detail. I would like to engage with you presuming the best, but can you see how saying I'm being disingenuous and that my points are non-sequitur (when it seems like you do understand what TERFs are, what bathroom bills are, and what it was I was getting at and how it relates to our discussion) made that difficult for me?

> Addressing and empathizing with the actual concern will get trans people into their preferred bathrooms and keep bad men out.

Happy to listen to what you may propose, but I don't have any thoughts. I certainly empathize with women's feeling of unsafety and the desire to create spaces without men, to the extent I can as a man. But I understand if you are done with this conversation, I myself need to log off for a few hours to attend to things, and of course you don't owe me any of your time.

All the best to you, as well.

Re: It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness

#325

Post by throwaway049 » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 6:13 PM UTC

maxbond wrote: post #291

rendall wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kinks are impossible to pin down or fence in, people can get turned on by literally anything. While a true statement it's also a non-sequitur. Anglosphere society is roiled with social turmoil about trans-gender identity. One faction would like society to recognize that some people's gender does not fit their sex, and to normalize accommodating these people's gender expression without intrusive and oppressive quest…

This narrative of predatory trans people does not bare out, trans people are not assaulting people in bathrooms, and what you're describing is really using the way our society is built to be hostile to people who do not fit into gender norms as a way to justify further hostility. It's saying, oh look, we built bathrooms and prisons in a way that reinforces these norms, well, I guess we're stuck with them.

Sometimes they are doing exactly that

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-...

Re: It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness

#326

Post by maxbond » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #322

maxbond wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing ambiguous or misleading, what you're actually objecting to is the concrete and specific use of language to describe ideas you don't like and which you don't want to see proliferate. You aren't objecting to people being mislead, you're objecting to people understanding. Do give 1984 a read, I think you'll find the irony that you are appropriating a term used in that book in order to invert it's meaning…

Heterosexuality being prevalent within the population (note that I purposefully avoid idioms like "X is the norm" as ambiguous, especially in this context) is merely the flip side of LGBTQIA+ folks being a minority. Now, a minority can have a robust subculture - and one can certainly make that claim about LGBTQ identity today - but that doesn't somehow make it into not-a-minority. Social and cultural norms are beside…

You're conflating heterosexuality and heteronormativity. You could have a society where heterosexuality is prevalent, without having heteronormativity. Heteronormativity encompasses both heterosexuality and a specific set of gender roles for men and women; so it is not enough for heterosexuality to be prevalent. You need to conflate these genders with heterosexuality, prescribe them, and marginalize sexual and gender identities that do not conform to this.

Heteronormativity isn't an epistemology, there's no burden for it to be consistent. It's a set of beliefs and attitudes, and a label that allows you to critique them. Why would we expect that to be any more consistent than the human behavior it describes (which is to say, only somewhat)? Will this label break down and stop making sense as society changes? Yes, I imagine it will. Will it become unwieldy and eventually fail altogether if we employ it in an analysis spanning cultures with very different conceptions of gender? Absolutely. But you might as well ask whether the concept of pop music is consistent and relate it to the works of Beethoven, if you think that's useful in your analysis than go for it, but if it doesn't work in that circumstance it isn't a condemnation of the idea. The only burden on heteronormativity is to be useful in describing real world behavior, which it clearly is.

If you want to know whether heteronormativity is a real phenomenon, you need look no further than the comment I criticized. It doesn't say, heterosexuality is prevalent; it says, heterosexuality is total, that it is "natural" and "normal", that it is inseparable from gender, and that people living as (or even describing) other gender and sexual identities are doing it to trick you.

Re: It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness

#327

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

maxbond wrote: post #326

zozbot234 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heterosexuality being prevalent within the population (note that I purposefully avoid idioms like "X is the norm" as ambiguous, especially in this context) is merely the flip side of LGBTQIA+ folks being a minority. Now, a minority can have a robust subculture - and one can certainly make that claim about LGBTQ identity today - but that doesn't somehow make it into not-a-minority. Social and cultural norms are beside…

You're conflating heterosexuality and heteronormativity. You could have a society where heterosexuality is prevalent, without having heteronormativity. Heteronormativity encompasses both heterosexuality and a specific set of gender roles for men and women; so it is not enough for heterosexuality to be prevalent. You need to conflate these genders with heterosexuality, prescribe them, and marginalize sexual and gender…

> Heteronormativity encompasses both heterosexuality and a specific set of gender roles for men and women

Heteronormativity is just heterosexuality as a normative element of social structures (not merely prevalent in society, but where deviation from it is viewed as transgressive.) In modern societies, it is typically tied to patriarchy (a particular normatige structure of gender roles, in which social power is attached to male roles), cisnormativity, and, in particular societies, it may be attached to things like White supremacy that are superficially farther from sex/gender dynamics, but these are nevertheless distinct if linked elements of the cultures they appear in.

Re: It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness

#328

Post by rendall » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #194

api wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bring this one up every time someone brings up Chesterton's Fence arguments about stuff like this. Why was left handedness considered taboo and evil? Do we need to figure out a legitimate reason for this before we can remove the fence? Could there possibly be a legitimate reason for something that clearly absurd?

There could be, but I think the presumption should be that it is normal social evolution to stigmatize minorities. Red-headed people, Jewish/Semitic people, people with cleft palates, on and on. There seems to be a representation threshold below which any observable minority is considered undesirable. To the extent there is a “legitimate reason” it is probably rooted in evolutionary psychology for avoiding too much g…

> evolutionary psychology for avoiding too much genetic variation in small tribes

Hmm. I suspect it's just "other tribes". We humans will make tribes out of literally any distinction, even athletic team preferences. It's kind of our thing.

Re: It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness

#329

Post by rendall » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #249

cshimmin wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No comment about Chesterton's Fence but I have heard (but never confirmed!) one reason for left-handed stigma is to do with hygiene. The idea is that before modern hygienic standards (e.g. sinks with soap in every bathroom/kitchen), the left hand was reserved for "dirty work" (we are also considering a time before toilet paper...). So for example when you reach out to shake someone's hand, it would be rude to use the…

Your right hand is your sword hand; by offering to shake hands, you demonstrate that you are not about to run your counterparty through.

This is apocryphal

Re: It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness

#330

Post by RC_ITR » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 6:25 PM UTC

ccity88 wrote: post #33

What's interesting to me is that if we're able to accept the idea that mass social media-induced illness can be developed just by virtue of video watching TikTok or YouTube, then this opens new doors to examining the behaviour of other illnesses such as gender dysphoria that are statistically over represented. This is probably going to get downvoted to oblivion, because nobody wants to confront the idea that we can _…

>then this opens new doors to examining the behaviour of other illnesses such as gender dysphoria that are statistically over represented.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that 1950's Western norms are a 'baseline.'

History shows us that almost all expressions of gender are fluid. The idea of "men and women need to be segregated in certain places (particularly when nude) and must dress differently' is likely the cause of how prevalent transgender people have become. It was always an unsustainable system that was only allowed to flourish because a powerful minority wanted it to. Like are you a boy that relates primarily to women? Well you either endure being separated from them for a ton of meaningful developmental activities or you become transgender.

I think there are plenty of people who would be fine with their biological sex if it didn't come with so much societal baggage.