roseweird posted:drwhat posted:
roseweird posted:
testosterone pretty objectively makes people worse in all the ways that matter to disrupting an egalitarian society, it makes them aggressive, status-seeking, and violent
yeah, and estrogen ruins society because oh right that would be a stupid thing to post
feminism is cool and all, but calling for the death of men or the end of two genders is just a little insane, thx though
well, i say this as someone who has experienced large amounts of both testosterone and estrogen in my life. estrogen does not have wide-ranging and immediate behavioral effects like testosterone, which also supports the production of things like adrenaline. obviously people get used to the amounts of testosterone in their body and learn to cope, but my point is that in general, after controlling for all cultural factors, taking any human body and adding testosterone to it will make it behave more aggressively.
so blacks are more inherently aggressive than whites, real classy....
Ironicwarcriminal posted:so blacks are more inherently aggressive than whites, real classy....
i love your passion
To paraphrase Rummy, you go to sociology with the society you have, not the one that you want.
roseweird posted:no, i haven't, but i skimmed the chapter on hormones, and i agree that testosterone and estrogen don't produce "maleness" and "femaleness" clearly as behavioral traits or overall brain organization patterns, and i see that she cites anne fausto-sterling, who is probably the best writer on this stuff. i am not making the points she refutes here, though, i am saying that testosterone, if we just think of it as a regular drug, rather than as a sex hormone, will still, when administered to any human, generally act to increase their impulse to aggression. i don't believe testosterone triggers instinctive sexual behaviors, but i do think it facilitates aggression in the service of learned or instinctive sexual behaviors.
basically, if we were capable of examining the entire population neutrally, with no regard to sex, we would eventually nevertheless note that half of the population naturally produces large amounts of testosterone and adrenaline and a few related hormones, which are known to cause disruptive aggression in society. if we could selectively remove this influence from our society simply by ceasing to produce individuals with these traits, we would do so. since we do not recognize men and women at all, we do not recognize these humans as a class but merely a collection of possessors of an undesirable trait. the only reason we would not do so is out of attachment to masculine identities based on male bodies, and a desire to see them continue to exist in the future.
you should probably stop saying "we" and "us" because I don't think most of us support eugenics especially a genocide on half the population
roseweird posted:i don't believe testosterone triggers instinctive sexual behaviors,
lol. why do i want to fuck and fight all the time?
69% of americans think pornography is not morally acceptable. looks like the tide has turned and feminism has won. hooray!
roseweird posted:no, i haven't, but i skimmed the chapter on hormones, and i agree that testosterone and estrogen don't produce "maleness" and "femaleness" clearly as behavioral traits or overall brain organization patterns, and i see that she cites anne fausto-sterling, who is probably the best writer on this stuff. i am not making the points she refutes here, though, i am saying that testosterone, if we just think of it as a regular drug, rather than as a sex hormone, will still, when administered to any human, generally act to increase their impulse to aggression. i don't believe testosterone triggers instinctive sexual behaviors, but i do think it facilitates aggression in the service of learned or instinctive sexual behaviors.
basically, if we were capable of examining the entire population neutrally, with no regard to sex, we would eventually nevertheless note that half of the population naturally produces large amounts of testosterone and adrenaline and a few related hormones, which are known to cause disruptive aggression in society. if we could selectively remove this influence from our society simply by ceasing to produce individuals with these traits, we would do so. since we do not recognize men and women at all, we do not recognize these humans as a class but merely a collection of possessors of an undesirable trait. the only reason we would not do so is out of attachment to masculine identities based on male bodies, and a desire to see them continue to exist in the future.
switch a couple of words in this and it's a great argument for genetically 'phasing out' gays so they stop destroying society.
getfiscal posted:69% of americans think pornography is not morally acceptable. looks like the tide has turned and feminism has won. hooray!
lol at support for polygamy doubling thanks to the legitimization of gay marriage
roseweird posted:well, it might be, if gays were genetically identifiable. they aren't, but males are.
well if we do happen to be able to genetically identify gays in the future, we'd better get rid of that shit so we can have a non-disruptive society
jools posted:why on earth would we clone ourselves by random algorithm, this is nuts
this is my one big chance and you want to fuck it up out of spite
roseweird posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
well if we do happen to be able to genetically identify gays in the future, we'd better get rid of that shit so we can have a non-disruptive society
well, i have no illusions that they will try and continue to fail, however i think this is still a false analogy. gays in this scenario are disruptive because they throw into question the assumptions on which patriarchy is built and disrupt patterns of inheritance. males in my scenario are disruptive because they are objectively more prone to violence, a trait tolerated and encouraged by the limitations of sexal reproduction, but undesirable outside the context of sexual reproduction.
i'd like to reply to this but all i can come up with is staring
roseweird posted:no, i haven't, but i skimmed the chapter on hormones, and i agree that testosterone and estrogen don't produce "maleness" and "femaleness" clearly as behavioral traits or overall brain organization patterns, and i see that she cites anne fausto-sterling, who is probably the best writer on this stuff. i am not making the points she refutes here, though, i am saying that testosterone, if we just think of it as a regular drug, rather than as a sex hormone, will still, when administered to any human, generally act to increase their impulse to aggression. i don't believe testosterone triggers instinctive sexual behaviors, but i do think it facilitates aggression in the service of learned or instinctive sexual behaviors.
basically, if we were capable of examining the entire population neutrally, with no regard to sex, we would eventually nevertheless note that half of the population naturally produces large amounts of testosterone and adrenaline and a few related hormones, which are known to cause disruptive aggression in society. if we could selectively remove this influence from our society simply by ceasing to produce individuals with these traits, we would do so. since we do not recognize men and women at all, we do not recognize these humans as a class but merely a collection of possessors of an undesirable trait. the only reason we would not do so is out of attachment to masculine identities based on male bodies, and a desire to see them continue to exist in the future.
variety is the spice of life
roseweird posted:ilmdge posted:
variety is the spice of life
well like i said, whatever, if people want to go on making male people past the point that it is necessary to do so for the sake of continuing humanity i guess they will? that's fine, i guess, i just don't get it.
yes you do, don't be disingenuous. People all around the world keep making more people not only past the point that it is necessary to do so for the sake of continuing humanity, but to the point where it is actually threatening that project.
Don't pretend you're shocked and confused that individuals, families or communities of humans would place more stock in their own identities, cultures or vanities than they would in abstract, unpredictable and subjective notions of 'continuing humanity'.
getfiscal posted:
Yeah though they might not completely honest. I mean the states that have the largest amount of memberships to porn sites are bible belt states.