Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 704 posts

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

#681

Post by deanCommie »

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #648
deanCommie wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm OP, and I did not appreciate this rebuttal, and consider it alarmist and terrible. I responded here if you want to take a look: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33891710 To your point, though, there is an explanation there too. The word is complex and full of many intersecting axis of considerations. For example - it can be logically consistent to be both pro renewable energy investment of all kinds, but also…

> our world is definitely still deeply GENDERED. There are people who believe it shouldn't be, and are working to buck those trends (and those people, generally, receive equally as much backlash as those transgender). Some things are pointlessly gendered, like pink/blue, or puffy sleeves, but others absolutely have a purpose, like single-sex spaces. > Transgender people - by and large - like most people - aren't look…

single-sex spaces are problematic AF.

What about intersex individuals? What about gay or lesbian individuals? What about masculine-presenting individuals?

All have always challenged the clean separation of single-sex spaces, and are mostly unnecessary.

To put an example, I agree that there should be rape counselling that are exclusive for women. Women should feel comfortable in that space without men present. But those women also need to understand that even if trans people didn't exist, they need to share that space with 1) non-femme presenting women, 2) non-straight women, 3) intersex individuals.

Adding transgender women to the list does not meaningfully destroy the validity of these spaces or ruin them for CIS women. They were never as black-and-white-biology-based as the hateful anti-trans bigots claim they are today.

Are there men attempting to infiltrate these spaces? Sure. They are bad faith actors, and they are exceptions.

Anecdotally, cis, hetero, butch women now report more harassment in bathrooms since the rise of anti-trans hate than they faced before.

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

#682

Post by int_19h »

andelink wrote: post #654
int_19h wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, but some people specifically insist on "he" and "she" and will get offended if you use "they". In one such case, when I asked why "they" is inappropriate since it is by definition inclusive of all genders, the question itself was declared highly offensive and "erasing".

This floors me. Can I ask the context in which this person was offended by the use of “they?” Was it a work setting? Tell me more about this person

It was a conversation in a private setting with several participants, some of whom were trans. It started as a broad conversation about which pronouns should be properly used when. When we got to "they", one of the participants brought up a common pattern whereby people will use "he" or "she" consistently to refer to cis people whose gender they know, but "they" when they need to refer to trans people (with known more specific pronouns) in the context where they can't get away with misgendering. We all agreed that this is rude, but then I asked whether it would be problematic if the person used "they" consistently, without discriminating. That's when it blew up.

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

#683

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

deanCommie wrote: post #681
LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> our world is definitely still deeply GENDERED. There are people who believe it shouldn't be, and are working to buck those trends (and those people, generally, receive equally as much backlash as those transgender). Some things are pointlessly gendered, like pink/blue, or puffy sleeves, but others absolutely have a purpose, like single-sex spaces. > Transgender people - by and large - like most people - aren't look…

single-sex spaces are problematic AF. What about intersex individuals? What about gay or lesbian individuals? What about masculine-presenting individuals? All have always challenged the clean separation of single-sex spaces, and are mostly unnecessary. To put an example, I agree that there should be rape counselling that are exclusive for women. Women should feel comfortable in that space without men present. But tho…

> clean separation of single-sex spaces, and are mostly unnecessary

Sexual assaults are vastly more often committed by males than females, and vastly more often on females and children. Until you replace single-sex spaces with something equally easy and effective you can't claim they aren't needed.

> single-sex spaces are problematic AF

Sexual attacks are problematic AF, single-sex spaces are the best way (cost vs effectiveness) we've come up with to prevent them.

What other single, easily inspectable, and enforceable rule would you replace it with? If you have only one bit of data to predict someone's sexual criminality you'd want to know their sex. If you have only one bit of data to predict someone's likelihood of being sexually attacked you'd want to know their sex. We know this from thousands of years of human history and from simply thinking about the male biological imperative versus the female.

> They were never as black-and-white-biology-based

There's no biology more black and white than male vs female, birth giver vs impregnator.

> What about intersex individuals?

Despite all the chromosome combinations and mobile genes there are only two gametes, sperm and egg. All intersex people are male or female. DSDs are disorders of sexual development, not whole new sexes.

> What about gay or lesbian individuals? What about masculine-presenting individuals?

They use the washroom that matches their sex.

> Anecdotally, [...] butch women now report more harassment in bathrooms

Yeah, since males started trying to use female spaces people have been on guard. Not only is their suffering not yours to use for emotional weight but you are part of the group which caused this.

> Women should feel comfortable in [rape counseling] without men present.

Magnanimous, to give them that. How about prisons?

> But those women also need to understand that even if trans people didn't exist, they need to share that space [...] lesbians

Do you feel that straight women weren't sharing with lesbians and that lesbians needed you, a male, to point this out?

> Adding transgender women to the list does not meaningfully destroy the validity of these spaces

As soon as a single male enters a female space it stops being a single-sex space.

> or ruin them for CIS women.

It destroys the value for all females.

> Are there men attempting to infiltrate these spaces? Sure. They are bad faith actors,

Bad faith rapists, go figure.

Is there a test that want us to perform to tell one of them from a justified male?

> and they are exceptions.

They're likely vastly more common than males who think they have gender dysphoria.

> as the hateful anti-trans bigots claim they are today.

How does a woman earn the right to declare herself different and politically distinct from you, and deserving of physical separation, without you calling her hateful?

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

#684

Post by maxbond »

maxbond wrote: post #446
zozbot234 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what I'm taking issue with is merely your claim of heteronormativity as a "set of beliefs and attitudes" that one can ascertain in anything like a consistent way. If compadrazgo and sworn brotherhood are too exotic for you, consider contemporary "bro" subculture; is it heteronormative? Some people might certainly claim as much, calling it especially misogynistic. Yet it also reportedly involves a lot of emotional…

If you'd like to explain why we should demand that a label describing a set of human behaviors be entirely consistent in order to be considered, when the human behaviors we're describing are frequently inconsistent and contradictory (but still real and worth discussing), then I'm happy to respond. I don't see anything wrong with your examples, I'm not familiar with compadrazgo or sworn brotherhood but I'd be willing…

I've seen that I expressed myself in a confusing way when I said "heterosexuality doesn't have to be the default, and that era is ending", I don't mean, LGBTQ identities will become the majority, what I meant was, the assumption of heterosexuality will no longer be made. In the same way you shouldn't assume people's handedness because, though you know most people are right-hand dominant, you also expect that any group of people of a significant size will contain many left handed people.

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

#685

Post by deanCommie »

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #683
deanCommie wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

single-sex spaces are problematic AF. What about intersex individuals? What about gay or lesbian individuals? What about masculine-presenting individuals? All have always challenged the clean separation of single-sex spaces, and are mostly unnecessary. To put an example, I agree that there should be rape counselling that are exclusive for women. Women should feel comfortable in that space without men present. But tho…

> clean separation of single-sex spaces, and are mostly unnecessary Sexual assaults are vastly more often committed by males than females, and vastly more often on females and children. Until you replace single-sex spaces with something equally easy and effective you can't claim they aren't needed. > single-sex spaces are problematic AF Sexual attacks are problematic AF, single-sex spaces are the best way (cost vs ef…

We can't have a reasonable discussion if you insist on calling all trans women men.

There might be a chance if you acknowledge the basic facts which is that the vast majority of trans women are as even MORE at risk of sexual assault than cis women. And that the "rapists" who are attempting to infiltrate female spaces are an extreme minority, and are a danger to all women - cis and trans.

There may be a version of an argument we could have about the difficulties have with banishing those people without banishing genuine trans women. But if you can't understand how trans women are victims in this too, and brandish them all as men, we're finished.

There is no point discussing your desire to reduce men and women to sperm and eggs either.

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

#686

Post by mnsc »

vinegarden wrote: post #676
mnsc wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will pass on your podcast because I found this: https://thepinknews.com/2022/05/22/conversion-therapy-trans-... First. Hakeem [...] describes himself as a “gender critical psychiatrist” Then the "sell" Hakeem offers “specialist psychotherapy for gender dysphoria”, and says that he “does not try and persuade or dissuade anyone from pursuing physical sex interventions such as hormones or surgery but his role is to pr…

Sounds like he asked some mildly probing questions that challenged the patient's self-beliefs, and Pink News have decided to spin this as being "conversion therapy". Indeed, it's quite telling that the GMC, who have condemned actual conversion therapy, didn't accept the complaint against Dr Hakeem: https://sex-matters.org/posts/healthcare/conversion-therapy-... . Note also that Pink News' general editorial stance is…

A therapist that knows how to ask mildly probing questions:

"I hear and validate your feelings and you have a lot of options in front of you, I'm here to help you to minimize the risk of regret with the irreversible options and that might lead me to ask uncomfortable questions, is that ok?"

Az probably:

"What on earth are you going about love? There's no such thing as gender! Gender is just sex. So you just go into the lavatory and check down your trousers, you see a willy down there? Yeees, then you are unfortunately a female, but a Johnson? Hooray! You are a man, then you can man the fuck up and skip out of here! NEEEEEEXT"

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

#687

Post by michaelmrose »

rendall wrote: post #636
michaelmrose wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a meaningless concern. Any man who would put on a dress to come assault you in the bathroom could skip the dress part and just come in the bathroom and assault you. It's like saying some rapists have red hair. It's true but its not meaningful because no fruitful thing can be derived from the fact nor strategy obtained. There are millions of trans people in the world but presumably few rapists in dresses. The…

Unfortunately, this is not an answer, and so, you are conceding public policy to people who do have answers that you will not like. What do you propose to do about a creepy man who hears that all he has to do is self-identify as a woman and now has a right to expose his penis to women? This is not a trans woman, but a man who just will not leave his penis alone in a women's locker room. Women avert their eyes, but he…

We shouldn't make actual rules based on fictional situations. In a situation like this it would be trivial to exclude the obvious troublemaker for disruptive harassing behavior. You act as if managers,cops, and judges aren't capable of exercising basic judgement. If you did this tomorrow you would find out that this isn't true. It's a waste of my time and yours.

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

#689

Post by theGnuMe »

lisper wrote: post #675
theGnuMe wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can simply google more recent things dude. You picked an article from 2001. Try 2021 or 2022. Clearly you have an agenda. But here's a case report showing a reduction in tics after EMDR. https://ijponline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13052-...

In a single patient. Published in the Italian Journal of Pediatrics, which is not exactly a top-tier journal. If that's the best you've got, that makes me even more confident that EMDR is bogus. > Clearly you have an agenda. Indeed I do. My agenda is to seek the truth, and to debunk bogus scientific claims wherever I encounter them.

There is growing evidence that EMDR works. If you can't find any articles yourself and read the literature well then it is your loss.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0218...

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

#690

Post by Karawebnetwork »

joenot443 wrote: post #663
Karawebnetwork wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That 50% number is anecdotal Then it is meaningless and hazardous to build an opinion upon it. > My guess is 100% of these children are on Tiktok/Snapchat TikTok usage is at 32.2% for children aged 10-19. Snapchat usage is at 59% for children aged 13-24. That would be unlikely. Those two platforms also share little in term of features and functionality. How are they relevant here and why single them out?

I’m sorry, but if you think TikTok and Snapchat have little overlap in their user base and feature set, you shouldn’t be speaking so confidently about teens issues because your perspective is woefully outdated. I worked at Snapchat. Nearly every new feature we made was to compete with TikTok and drag eye ball time back from them into Snap. It sounds like you just googled “TikTok usage teens” and are using that to adv…

Yes, just as Facebook and Instagram are also chasing a piece of the TikTok pie.

But they are not the same, they just share some features that have been added as updates. They are used by the same demographic, which is why I provided the stats for both. I wrote them in response to the claim that 100%, not 50%, of the class uses them which is unlikely. The 50% figure refers to the claim that 50% of the class identifies as non-binary, which is even more unlikely.

Ultimately, we are debating anecdotal exaggerations. Your response to that? You add another anecdote from a third party. Again, this has little value before actual polls and censuses.

You're also confusing two parts of this conversation: one is about gender identities, the other is about app usage. The two topics were brought into the picture with bogus statistics, so I brought them both up. However, they have little to do with each other.

Post reply on HN