|
JFairfax posted:Women are drawn to child birth which was for most of human history one of the riskiest activities one could ever engage in.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's a good thing then that nobody suggested that masculinity is solely tied to anything. I disagree entirely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
i doubt that testosterone's impact on risk is that it draws people to more exciting or risky behavior, but rather prevents people from rationally assessing risk. women do extreme sports and such as well, they're just less dumb about it on average
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
It's interesting what people who have transitioned or are transitioning have said about how hormones affect their psychological state. I know someone who in varying their T levels experimentally said T definitely made them more emotional, but not necessarily more aggressive/risk seeking. Plural of anecdote isn't data and all that, and you're looking at a small subset of the general population, but it's hard to find many people who vary their hormone levels in an outwardly controllable way and talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Trans people seem to be able to figure out that they've been sorted incorrectly by society. This suggests that there's something non-arbitrary about gender presentation. Otherwise, there's be no relevant clues for brains to use to figure out "correct" sorting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
I think there's a difference between body dysmorphia and wanting to dress up in skirts / make up / do 'girly' stuff and not 'manly' stuff or vice versa. Gender presentation is totally arbitrary, and you can look at differences in various different human societies down the ages for that. What is considered masculine changes just as what is considered fashionable changes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:These are excellent points. I would really like to find out if the women and girls drawn to equestrianism and other high risk activities exhibit higher levels of testosterone than the average. One of the interesting things I've come across on the subject of hormones, was that fathers have increased levels of Estrogen. Is the need for more empathy and protectiveness due to the birth of your own child driving that increase? Testosterone shmestosterone. When I look at a vaulting class today I remember being a girl at horse camp learning bareback riding and how much more fun/scary it was than saddled riding due to lack of stirrups. And I feel the ghost of a longing to join in. But then I remember I'm nearly 40 and I weigh more than I did then and a break harder and take longer to heal. My hormones haven't changed. I got older and I got injured enough that I lost my youthful assumption of my own invulnerability. Most people of both genders are like me. "Whhhheeeeeee! Ouch!!!!! Ok, let's take it easy from here on out". A few people of both genders find the highs to be worth the risk. To approach the issue from another direction take a minute to contemplate how deep our societal resistance is to even acknowledging that women do risky jobs. If I asked readers to name the top 5 most dangerous jobs in America - how many would list nursing? But it is one of the most injury prone jobs out there as well as the a hotbed of workplace violence. http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/nacnep/reports/fifthreport.pdf quote:
http://www.workingnurse.com/articles/Healthcare-is-America-s-Most-Dangerous-Industry quote:
But it's women's work so we culturally decide it is safe except for brief interludes when something scary like an Ebola outbreak happens that nurses are on the front lines for. Many women go into it expecting it to be safe. When they learn it isn't some leave and others stay. Are you going to posit that every nurse in America over 30 has high testosterone - thus leading to her continuing in a job that mixes incredibly stressed out/angry people with sharp objects and contagious diseases? Or maybe testosterone fixation is a cultural strategy to try to justify our arbitrary gender roles. Find a reliable difference between two groups and declare that it is a physical proof and justification of their social caste. Like ... You do realize that women with high testosterone have massively less than men with testosterone deficiencies, right? And paternal estrogen may be up for a father but is at practically homeopathic concentrations compared to female levels. http://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/hrt_ref.htm I am a woman with highish testosterone. That means I'm at the upper end of the female 6-86 ng/dl range. Ok. Great. The male range is 270-1100ng/dl. If testosterone is magical fairy dust that makes people whatever we've decided is masculine right now then how the hell is my tiny relative amounts of the Y-ambrosia enough to get me to not only out-competitive most guys but do so against tremendous social push back and dislike of female ambition? Even if we attribute to testosterone all the magical properties gender essentialists would like I don't have enough of it to explain me. And neither does Betsy Ingles. If the T was what made her climb out onto the wing of that plane then every man alive would do it too as they have way more testosterone than her. And we know drat well that the vast majority of men would not do what she did in the video I linked. Ergo, Testosterone shmestosterone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Trans people seem to be able to figure out that they've been sorted incorrectly by society. I thought I was a trans man for awhile but eventually realized that it was society that was wrong. Not me. I am who I am. The fact that society can't accept that without an Addams apple and a crotch bulge is society being stupid. Everything I do is feminine because I'm XX and I'm doing it. When your cultural tells you that what you are doing would be fine if you had a different set of genitals ... Well it's a hell of a lot easier to change your body than it is to change society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I thought I was a trans man for awhile but eventually realized that it was society that was wrong. Not me. I am who I am. The fact that society can't accept that without an Addams apple and a crotch bulge is society being stupid. Everything I do is feminine because I'm XX and I'm doing it. It sounds like you made the right decision for you. And like you're not trans. But I find it hard to believe that anyone's decided that legally changing their gender is the easiest & most socially-acceptable for them to do their preferred hobbies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:It sounds like you made the right decision for you. And like you're not trans. Don't be surprised, there are people who have limbs removed because they want to be disabled
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
That's usually because they're experiencing something akin to the opposite of phantom limb syndrome. There was a large ethics debate in the surgical community about actually performing the operations, because many thought that it was anything from an extreme stylistic choice to a psychosis, and that they'd keep coming back for more and more body parts to be removed, but it turned out that once the offending body part was removed there was no further desire for surgery. Proprioception is weird isn't greatly understood though afaik.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Gender is a binary thing imo. Just cause you want it to be different than it is doesn't mean it can be. Thats my 2 cents thanks and god bless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
cravius posted:Gender is a binary thing imo. Just cause you want it to be different than it is doesn't mean it can be. Thats my 2 cents thanks and god bless. Woah hot new take here. My mind's been expanded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Woah hot new take here. My mind's been expanded. You're welcome, friend. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:It sounds like you made the right decision for you. And like you're not trans. I could make 30k more a year as a man. I could get promotions more easily. I would inspire trust to get to work on more interesting projects. I have literally been in a meeting where an argument by a rival was made that I shouldn't be assigned to a team was that it was a multi-year commitment because I could get pregnant and leave them in the lurch. To my face. When I was 16 my dad told me he wasn't sending me to college because educating women is a waste of money eu. When I tried to join the army for college money I scored a 99 on the absvab and then was told to take a hike by the recruiter because they didn't want women. I had to emancipate myself before I could apply for aid because my parents made to much money. Presenting as female has curtailed my opportunities tremendously and for nearly two decades of my life my argument was that I was abnormal and really a guy on the inside and this should be treated as a guy instead of a girl because I wasn't one. Not really. If trans surgery had been an option I realized existed at 15 I would have been first in line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Presenting as female has curtailed my opportunities tremendously and for nearly two decades of my life my argument was that I was abnormal and really a guy on the inside and this should be treated as a guy instead of a girl because I wasn't one. Not really. And you're suggesting that this is a common reason for people to transition? What sorts of benefits would transwomen get?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:And you're suggesting that this is a common reason for people to transition? If who they are doesn't line up with whatever masculinity is right now then they too get hit with endless micro aggressions telling them that who they are is unacceptable in the body they have. Again, you either change your presentation/body to match what society expects or you pay a price for non-conformity. I know two trans women and the one I've talked to said her motivation was maternal bliss. She's the stay at home step mom of her wife's two natural born kids. Presenting as female she gets to chat with other mothers at the playground without having folks get weird. A lone guy staring at a playground full of kids gets pushback. I have an aunt and uncle that have also flipped the norm ... She's a phd with a long hours job and he teaches stage combat part time while doing stand up comedy occasionally. He's the primary caregiver stay at home dad and he always has stories of the bullshit he gets for being a married man doing the woman's job. Imagine shopping with your 4 year old and her having a temper tantrum melt down involving the phrase i want my mommy when you are the dad and your child's coloration favors your spouse. Uncle R had a nice chat with the police after that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
I think so but there are plenty well reasoned people here in this forum that will convince you that goony men using women's bathrooms is okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
No one knows whether behavior correlates with genitals intrinsically, because it's almost impossible to disentangle personality from social expectations and norms that are already established, which may emerge for fairly practical reasons (Men can't breastfeed, so it would be natural to place women into a child-caring role, and then associate women with 'caring' more generally, even if there's no inherent behavioral difference w.r.t caring). I personally am not convinced that there is a relationship, I think the actual process of genetic encoding for neural pathways would be incredibly complicated (when you actually think about it) and therefore not likely, so I doubt it's possible, which necessarily limits the behavioral differences possible. The effects of testosterone tends to be overrated as well. But just more generally, I think people are more similar than they realize, or feel comfortable with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Gender dimorphism and the fairly consistent tendency for men, especially young men, across many different cultures, to be more aggressive, would seem to suggest that beneath all that social conditioning there is at least some relationship between sex and behavior. But we also have a lot of evidence that social conditioning and individual variation play a big role here so it seems dangerous to leap to any simplistic conclusions one way or the other. Dimorphism has always been a huge indicator for me. Generally even if humans were not originally pre-disposed to gendered behavior, appearance and identity the dimorphism indicates at some point these traits were advantageous in polygynous-ish societies. So now even beyond social conditioning, there are pretty stark in-born (if not necessarily genetic) differences between genders. But even this could be different in different cultures that are removed enough from that structure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:(Men can't breastfeed, so it would be natural to place women into a child-caring role, and then associate women with 'caring' more generally, even if there's no inherent behavioral difference w.r.t caring). So let's take this and step back in time a couple hundred years to when the basic economic unit of society was the family farm. The family farm has two very important features that are different from modern day life. Firstly it openly and actively utilized everyone's labor including wives and children of both genders. Secondly, it included common work that everyone did as well as gender specific work that only one gender knew how to do where instruction passed from mother to daughter and father to son. In the parlance of our times, men spent millennia working from home and being intimately involved with child rearing as they took responsibility for their male children at a very early age and worked side by side with them all day teaching them the XY reserved skill sets. Modern fathering is a pale and weak imitation of the deep involvement of men in parenting duties for the bulk of human history where intensive agriculture was practiced. Sending men away from the family to work and excising them from a primary caregiver role is actually a very new thing that just feels old to us because it is slightly longer than living memory. By the same token, denying adult women economically productive activities is also a modern phenomena since the separation of the workplace from the home is very recent. So appealing to history to justify the current social structure which is failing to satisfy the common human desires of either men ( to nurture ) or women ( to pull our own weight economically ) is wrong because this poo poo is new. It hasn't alway been like this. Not even close. Hell, if you want to go pre-agriculture it flips our modern notions even further on their heads because hunter/gatherer fathers in modern primitive tribes do virtually no provisioning of wives and children. Adults feed themselves. Mothers, siblings, and maternal grandmothers feed children. The loss of a maternal grandmother increases the likelihood that a hunter/gatherer child will die before maturity significantly. The loss of a father not at all. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21225/1/Who_keeps_children_alive_(LSERO).pdf But hunter gatherer men do spend a lot of time playing with hunter gatherer children and playing is a form of nurturing/teaching. And nurturing is a universal human impulse. Not masculine. Not feminine. Human. I can grant you a premise that I flatly disagree with and still make my case. I think all human beings are incredibly adaptive and the very few "hard wired" mental traits are present in both genders about equally but channeled differently by society - ie a girl that loves to build things gets sent to hobby lobby while a boy with the same tinkering instinct gets sent to RadioShack and the goods at each store direct the expression of the universal human impulse in different directions. And then society pays the boy more since they were channeled to a higher paying expression. But for the sake of argument I'll entertain the notion that holding one social arrangement for a very long time can "hardwire" us for gender roles. But that supposition alone isn't enough to demonstrate that current gender roles are rooted in biology since you must also show that it's been that way for a very long time and it hasn't. Just like the magical testosterone argument falls down when you realize that very masculine/adventurous/competitive women have less than a tenth of of the testosterone that the average man has. These bio truths arguments don't stand up even if you grant them their overly complex/sketchy assumptions. And given that we can very clearly see/test/reproduce the effects of social pressure on people there is no real need to find other explanations except as an attempt to defend the current social order.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
McAlister posted:These bio truths arguments don't stand up even if you grant them their overly complex/sketchy assumptions. And given that we can very clearly see/test/reproduce the effects of social pressure on people there is no real need to find other explanations except as an attempt to defend the current social order. This explains your hostility at least. Nobody here is attempting to defend any sort of social order. Even if hormones were responsible for the majority of our behavior (which is not what the research done on them says), it would still be wrong to force people into gender roles. Please remember that explanation is not agreement. The desire to understand something is not supporting it. Now, that out of the way, are you really trying to say that hormones have no impact on human behavior? Research does not support this. Our mental state is managed by such a delicately balanced cocktail of chemicals (including hormones) that even a small change in the levels can screw you up. This I know first hand, as I have to take one medication to balance my seretonin, and another for testosterone. Without them, I become paranoid, anxious, obsessive and depressed. Without the testosterone especially, my libido dissapears completely as a 34 year old man (though it started in my 20's). I'm a different person without them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Quite a bit of my hostility is due to people assuming they know more about my lived experiences than I do and all the times in my life that being XX was held against me. Talmonis posted:The desire to understand something is not supporting it. True. However starting with the assumption that an intrinsic difference exists between populations and then trying to understand the mechanism that causes it to prove it exists is both circular and a historic pattern used to "scientifically" justify caste systems throughout history. Take girls and mathematics ability ... Which until recently was on the list of things people insisted testosterone magically made people better at. When the burden of proof all along should have been on gender essentialists to prove that the difference in expressed math ability historically was innate rather than social. Something they can't do because it isn't. Talmonis posted:Now, that out of the way, are you really trying to say that hormones have no impact on human behavior? Nope. I'm specifically calling out the people imbuing sex linked hormones with magical powers that coincidentally justify our current sexual stereotypes. We have lots of hormones and most of them are running around in both men and women in similar amounts doing the same things. Some of them influence behavior. some of them dont. Or don't in the ways people are claiming. So let's recap: 1: A claim was made linking the hormone testosterone to risk taking and aggression to explain our arbitrary social claim that observed differences in risk taking and aggression between the genders were due to inherent differences between men and women rather than social pressures. 2: I provided multiple examples of women exhibiting risk taking behavior both historic and modern. I linked a study showing that in anonymized situations women are just as aggressive as men to back up the claim that differences in public aggression are due to social pushback rather than innate differences. And linked a video of a woman talking about what a rush vaulting is as well as recounting some of my own riding experiences to rebuke the claim that women just aren't wired to find danger thrilling like men are. 3: The response to that was to speculate that women like myself and the women in the links have abnormally high levels of fairy dust --- scuse me testosterone --- causing us to behave like men. 4: I responded showing that even women with high testosterone have over an order of magnitude less than the average man, a fifth the T of a low T man, and 1/20th of a high T man. If testosterone causes this stuff, and we have so little of it, how can we be the way we are? It doesn't make sense. quote:Without the testosterone especially, my libido dissapears completely as a 34 year old man (though it started in my 20's). I'm a different person without them. There! You just made an argument for an effect of testosterone that is reasonable! It's verifiable. We can double blind test it. We can see how the libido develops in adolescence with the onset of sex hormone production. And when I say, "hold on, I've got way less testosterone than you even without your boosters but my libido is fine" there is a simple explanation for it. In women different hormones regulate libido than in men. So I can have a libido without lots of testosterone because I'm getting it from my sex hormones. Same result, different mechanism. Now back to aggression and risk taking. We have observed no difference between men and women in either of those things that can't be explained adequately through socialization. So either the hormone that most directly regulates that isn't sex linked or women get it through a different sex-linked mechanism than men such that our testosterone levels are irrelevant. You can't claim that a hormone is the root cause of something when people with virtually none of that hormone have the result too. When you do you are being no different than the people who claimed math ability was linked to testosterone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
McAlister posted:You can't claim that a hormone is the root cause of something when people with virtually none of that hormone have the result too. When you do you are being no different than the people who claimed math ability was linked to testosterone. You keep saying I'm claming that hormones are a root cause. I'm not. I'm questioning whether it's a factor in play. I think it is, and the research done supports that it may be. How can your testosterone and my estrogen be irrelevant, so long as they are the proper amounts for our brains to process as our respective sexes? The body produces them for a reason. Are you saying they're vestigial from when we were still forming? McAlister posted:And when I say, "hold on, I've got way less testosterone than you even without your boosters but my libido is fine" there is a simple explanation for it. In women different hormones regulate libido than in men. So I can have a libido without lots of testosterone because I'm getting it from my sex hormones. Same result, different mechanism. Now here's more along the lines of what I'm trying to say. Of course it effects you differently. Why is their harm in asking what effect different hormones have on each of us? So what if old misogynists use testosterone in their arguments. We know they're wrong. To this end and to address the topic in the OP, I want to know if a Trans-wo(man)'s brain is processing hormones at an abnormal level. Not to justify any sort of categorization or social norm, but to further understand what causes a person to be trapped in a body they know isn't right for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Helsing here puts it better than I can. But all he's saying in that quote is "maybe one thing is true, maybe the other thing is true, it's impossible to decide with any certainty", which is very different from your clear focus on trying to blame hormones for specific cultural factors. Talmonis posted:Now, that out of the way, are you really trying to say that hormones have no impact on human behavior? Research does not support this. Our mental state is managed by such a delicately balanced cocktail of chemicals (including hormones) that even a small change in the levels can screw you up. This I know first hand, as I have to take one medication to balance my seretonin, and another for testosterone. Without them, I become paranoid, anxious, obsessive and depressed. Without the testosterone especially, my libido dissapears completely as a 34 year old man (though it started in my 20's). I'm a different person without them. When you take a testosterone pill, do you immediately develop a deep craving for power tools, riced-out sports cars, and extreme skydiving into the driver's seat of a convertible parked on top of a yacht?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
While there probably are differences, they likely aren't significant or consistent enough to be particularly important. For example, it's possible that females (referring to the sex, not women as a gender) are 3% more likely to exhibit some form of behavior than males, but that is kind of useless for guiding how we run society. Regardless of whether a difference exists, the fact is that many women behave in ways we consider stereotypically male and vice versa, and there's no reason not to be fine with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:When you take a testosterone pill, do you immediately develop a deep craving for power tools, riced-out sports cars, and extreme skydiving into the driver's seat of a convertible parked on top of a yacht? Something much more along the lines of quickly (as in, over a few days) developing a crushing epiphany that I like big butts, and I cannot lie. Although, it does also increase my energy levels and willingness to go out and socialize. Which to someone with as deep social anxiety as I have can attest, is insanely risky behavior... Talmonis fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Hormones as a dictator of human behaviour is infinitely less interesting and worth discussing than simply the end behaviours themselves. Start from what a person feels and what affects their mental wellbeing and work backwards. An obsession with the physical bases for such behaviors and feelings is almost invariably an attempt to delegitimize them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:When you take a testosterone pill, do you immediately develop a deep craving for power tools, riced-out sports cars, and extreme skydiving into the driver's seat of a convertible parked on top of a yacht?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Of course not, testosterone has terrible bioavailability orally. Also this. It's a gel, injection or under the skin dissolving thingie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Hormones as a dictator of human behaviour is infinitely less interesting and worth discussing than simply the end behaviours themselves. Not at all. Understanding the underlying causes and addressing them is important. Depression for example, can't be cured by simple wellwishing and telling the person to "feel better," as if it's something that their behavior can control. It's a chemical imbalance. The brain is malfunctioning, and we can help fix it with medication and proper therapy. To develop that medication, you study and "obsess" over the physical basis for the disorder. If there was a medication that would help make you feel more comfortable in your own body, wouldn't you want that? Remove it from the societal aspect for a moment, and focus on the individual. If you could take a medication that helps let you feel "right" in your own skin, when your baseline is a constant feeling of displacement, isn't that a good thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
What you are asking me to do is akin to saying "no, ignore the societal implications of eugenics for a moment, I'm just really interested in the theory, honest." The majority of people who talk about the innate biological basis for behaviours are people trying to find justification for why we shouldn't accept any behaviours other than their pet ones. I have little patience for them or their arguments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What you are asking me to do is akin to saying "no, ignore the societal implications of eugenics for a moment, I'm just really interested in the theory, honest." Hormones can have massive impacts on behavior. Oxytocin and it's relation to mother/child bonding is pretty important in challenging long held gender roles for how mothers should behave towards their children, as prolonged lack of contact with and infant due to medical issues can cause women to not immediately feel the level of attachment they "should" and they have to deal with feeling like a terrible mother when all that is happening is biology got delayed. Its also part of why infants in neonatal care wards do better when they are touched by a person, among a bunch of other effects. Full on kangaroo care is not entirely supported by evidence, but human interaction with infants improved their outlook is. If hormones are this critical to human development, yeah they probably effect behaviors in adults to some degree as well, and that's interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Hormones as a dictator of human behaviour is infinitely less interesting and worth discussing than simply the end behaviours themselves. This exactly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Don't be surprised, there are people who have limbs removed because they want to be disabled Hell, we are a species that commits suicide. Our capacity for emotional pain is such that we occasionally choose to voluntarily end our lives to stop feeling horrible. A little cosmetic surgery ain't nothing compared to killing yourself. Note: I did know that hysterectomies existed in the 90's but was unable to find a doctor willing to perform one on me as a healthy childless twenty something woman. I know men of that age who were able to get vasectomies at that time. They got a moderate amount of pushback and couldn't get the first doc they called to do it. But in the end their control of their fertility was respected in a way mine wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
And when it comes to boneing I'm Mr Erecticy Hoes come by the crib for a free hysterectomy
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What you are asking me to do is akin to saying "no, ignore the societal implications of eugenics for a moment, I'm just really interested in the theory, honest." You're an idiot, frankly, if that's how you feel about a potentially better understanding of human behavior and tendencies. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Note: I did know that hysterectomies existed in the 90's but was unable to find a doctor willing to perform one on me as a healthy childless twenty something woman. I know men of that age who were able to get vasectomies at that time. They got a moderate amount of pushback and couldn't get the first doc they called to do it. But in the end their control of their fertility was respected in a way mine wasn't. It's still harder for someone to get a tubal ligation than a vasectomy for a variety of reasons, from the ease of reversibility, to one being largely external, to social attitudes about women and babies, but the male equivalent of a hysterectomy would be more like an orchidectomy, which is similarly hard to get just by asking around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
I had testosterone injections (because suboxone made my testosterone levels super low) and the only differences I noticed were a very subtle increase in energy and a pretty noticeable increase in libido. My levels after the injections were pretty much at the very highest end of normal. Unfortunately I didn't suddenly develop an interest in monster trucks or professional wrestling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Hormones as a dictator of human behaviour is infinitely less interesting and worth discussing than simply the end behaviours themselves. McAlister posted:Hell, we are a species that commits suicide. Our capacity for emotional pain is such that we occasionally choose to voluntarily end our lives to stop feeling horrible. This is a very, very interesting set of posts to appear. The first claims that "an obsession for physical basis for such bahaviors and feelings" is a immoral pursuit. The second flippantly mentions suicide in the same breath as a sex change procedure as if they are on the same spectrum. I think this is very interesting; if you do not want to address the physical basis for mental health problems, then you are basically telling people who have suicidal thoughts "go ahead, do it. That's what you feel is best, right. I support your decision, you are brave." Is this seriously where the argument is going? Personally, I feel that in 20 years, maybe sooner, when neuroscience has progressed to the point where it can pinpoint the reasons why people need sex changes it will be treatable with medication or therapy, just like depression is now. This period of surgery and hormone supplements will be looked back on in the same light we look back on lobotomies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 23:51
|
|