Is gender a social construct?

[Ca.]

And what if it has almost nothing to do with any of the usual explanations, but really has everything to do with poisons in the food we eat???

Absolutely - I think there is a big concurrent role here in the chemicals. Sometime last year, Jan Irvin did a podcast interview with a researcher devoted to understanding the effects and dosages of gender bending/hormone disrupting chemicals in so many products, wrappers, food, etc. He listed so many, I was floored. He also talked to many animal/human studies that showed heavy gender bending effects. One of his points was that folks just don't realize how much these gender issues among our youth would be non-existent without these poisons.

The podcast was last year sometime and is archived - unfortunately paid membership is required to access it.

Podcast #96 - Jan Irvin on The Trivium Method & Transhumanism - Bulletproof Radio
Published on Feb 13, 2014

http://<iframe width="560" height="...oQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Transhumanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
Debate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism#Debate
Loss of human identity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism#Loss_of_human_identity
Snip:

Biopolitical activist Jeremy Rifkin and biologist Stuart Newman accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in organismal identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact.[107][117] Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in modernization in which technology has been used to transform the "natural" into the "artifactual".[118] In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "monsters" such as human clones, human-animal chimeras, or bioroids, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from social and ecological systems are seen as problematic. The film Blade Runner (1982) and the novels The Boys From Brazil (1976) and The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create objectified and socially unmoored people as well as subhumans. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as dehumanizing possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.[119]

Science journalist Ronald Bailey claims that McKibben's historical examples are flawed and support different conclusions when studied more closely.[120] For example, few groups are more cautious than the Amish about embracing new technologies, but, though they shun television and use horses and buggies, some are welcoming the possibilities of gene therapy since inbreeding has afflicted them with a number of rare genetic diseases.[104] Bailey and other supporters of technological alteration of human biology also reject the claim that life would be experienced as meaningless if some human limitations are overcome with enhancement technologies as extremely subjective

Raymond Kurzweil believes that a countdown to when "human life will be irreversibly transformed" can be made through plotting major world events on a graph.

Queering the Human: Is the Transhuman already here?
http://www.philpercs.com/2015/07/queering-the-human-am-i-transhuman-already.html
Snip:By B.P. Morton

Or consider the strange life of Genesis P-Orridge, one of my personal hero/ines, about whom even basic ontology becomes linguistically fraught and contestable. I’m not even sure how to talk about Genesis without “deadnaming” h/er, so I hope I can be forgiven. Genesis began life as two separate humans, named Jacquelin Mary Breyer and Neil Andrew Megson. These two grew up. Neil legally changed h/er name to Genesis P-Orridge in 1971 (at age 21), and eventually became an important and influential avant-garde musician. I know h/er mostly as the front person for Throbbing Gristle, one of the very first Industrial bands. S/he also led Psychic TV. In 1993 Genesis began the “Pandrogeny Project” in which Jacquelin and Genesis attempted to merge into a single being named Genesis Breyer P-Orridge, to the extent that they were able. Largely s/he altered h/erselves to more closely resemble each other, in being as well as appearance, and attempted to merge h/er lives and experiences. S/he used hormones, extensive surgical body alterations, legal marriage, occultist rituals, and avant-garde art all in the attempt to effect as complete merger as possible. Genesis identifies as gender neutral and as a thorough but imperfect mix of h/er two original identities. In 2007 the body of Genesis that was assigned female at birth died. Genesis’ understanding of this situation is that s/he is now partly alive and partly dead, and has being both in the realm of the living and the dead. Is Genesis Breyer P-Orridge human? Is s/he one human or two humans (one of which is now dead)? If there is a case to be made for someone who already has a transhuman identity, I know of no better example than the life of Genesis Breyer P-Orridge.

If I were guessing, I would guess that transfolk and disabled folk will consistently lead the way into transhumanism. Why? Well, technologies aimed at seriously altering non-trivial aspects of human being, are going to have to go through experimental phases where they are expensive, of doubtful safety, and socially unfamiliar. That means there will be a lot of risks and costs. Which means the early adapters will need to be highly motivated to bear the risks. Taking feminizing hormones and going through a second puberty is expensive, not covered by my insurance, probably increases my risk of breast cancer and some heart and bone problems, and subjects me to some pretty steep social headwinds. And it’s not even particularly experimental anymore, Harry Benjamin started experimenting with HRT to treat trans patients in 1948. But in many ways it is still edgy. So why do I do it? Because it makes me feel vastly more comfortable, more myself, it helps me cope with my gender dysphoria. When South African doctors performed the first successful penis transplant after many failed attempts, earlier this year, trans-men around the world got excited, even though it’s likely to have a terrible success rate for years to come. When we first get viable chromosomal altering technologies (via nano or tailored viruses perhaps), I’ll be lots transfolk sign up for the early testing, even though the early protocols are sure to be atrocious in many ways. Similarly, I’m not particularly disabled myself, but I’ll bet that many smart, rational disabled people are willing to bear risks and costs that would make most able-bodied folks’ blood run cold, in hopes of mitigating some of the problems they live with. Do some disabled people identify strongly with their prostheses? I’ll bet. Do they think of themselves in cyborg terms more strongly than abled-bodied folks? Sometimes, I’ll bet. Certainly where I am most disabled is where I most think of myself in cyborg terms. Do they think of themselves as “cyborg enough” to be (barely) transhuman? Especially when they feel most alienated from the mainstream of humanity? I don’t know. Anyone know folks who think that way?

UnSpun 061 - Transgenda: Transgender and Modern Eugenics
Streamed live on Mar 21, 2017

http://<iframe width="560" height="...3c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jan and Joe discuss the promotion of transgender and the gay agenda, including unisex bathrooms as part of the modern eugenics program against Americans and the world.

Source:http://www.gnosticmedia.com/

 

[angelburst29]

I looked up some definitions in my computer dictionary. This is what it says for gender:

1 the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones): traditional concepts of gender | [ as modifier ] : gender roles.
• the members of one or other sex: differences between the genders are encouraged from an early age.

usage: The word gender has been used since the 14th century as a grammatical term, referring to classes of noun designated as masculine, feminine, or neuter in some languages. The sense ‘the state of being male or female’ has also been used since the 14th century, but this did not become common until the mid 20th century. Although the words gender and sex both have the sense ‘the state of being male or female,’ they are typically used in slightly different ways: sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender refers to cultural or social ones.

Is this distinction really necessary, i.e. does it really clarify anything? I still think this sex vs gender debate is nothing more than a needless level of abstraction that opens the door to all kinds of BS. I've had to fill out forms for medical purposes and other things and some ask for sex and some ask for gender. I've never had anything ask me for my sex and my gender. Ever. This is how I internalized the notion growing up that sex and gender are the same thing. I've read a little bit about Laura studying etymologies and so forth and how words often come to mean the opposite of what they originally stood for and I'm wondering if this is what's at stake here. How many pre-2000 dictionaries support this distinction? Maybe I'm just "uneducated" from growing up in a conservative county

If someone "feels" like a woman and decides to cross dress or paint their nails or whatever, they are adopting typical female roles or behavior; it has nothing to do with the underlying gender. Hence, a guy describing himself as a femme guy, he's still a guy but has feminine traits or behavior. It is a state of mind. I have encountered a couple of people who described themselves thusly. I think if we allow gender to be defined along the lines of "the subjective experience of one's sex" then we have to concede that they are absolutely right; gender fluidity is a thing and they are whatever they say they are in the moment. They have been discriminated against because we don't have words to appropriately address their unique gendered state and we should use their pronouns. (But we already have a plentiful vocabulary to describe psychological states and behaviors) At that point the only criticism I could rationally offer to the whole gender fluidity "movement" is that they do not have the right to be so totalitarian or prejudicial towards me for being "cis gendered."

Therefore, in my reality sex=gender and that puts the whole convoluted thing of meaningless distinctions to rest. Does that make me as solipsistic and odious as the "libtards"?

It seems the CIA and Soros is behind the transgender program.

CIA Celebrates Transgender Pride
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/cia-celebrates-transgender-pride/

May 30, 2017 - A George Soros-funded organization calling itself the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) held a conference on May 25 to celebrate 14 years of existence, while preparing “to continue the fight for trans equality.” Sponsors of this special event included Amazon, Facebook, Google and the CIA.

“The CIA was one of more than thirty organizations that sponsored an event hosted by the National Center for Transgender Equality on May 25,” confirmed Jonathan Liu, a media spokesperson for the CIA Office of Public Affairs. “Our recruitment and hiring efforts are consistent with federal law.” He referred this journalist to the CIA’s public website regarding the CIA’s policy on diversity and information about its employee groups, including the Agency Network of Gay, Lesbian Bisexual, and Transgender Officers and Allies (ANGLE).

Honorees at the event included Gavin Grimm, a gender-confused female student who identifies as “male;” Vanita Gupta, the former Obama Justice Department official who led the effort to force transgender bathrooms and locker rooms on schools as a condition of funding; and Gunner Scott of the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC).

The CIA was listed as a “bronze” sponsor for $1,000 or more in contributions to the event.

Although Trump is now president and Pompeo is now the CIA director, it looks like nothing much has changed at the agency in regard to celebrating sexual perversity and special rights for various sexual minorities. The CIA website still features a statement from Obama CIA director John Brennan on the role played by the CIA’s Executive Diversity and Inclusion Council and the Center for Mission Diversity and Inclusion. Brennan’s “CIA Diversity and Inclusion Strategy” recognizes the need to hire “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals.”

It’s not clear how all of this sexual diversity helps America identify and defeat its foreign enemies.

The CIA has hosted National LGBT Pride Month during the month of June for 20 years, ... (Article continues.)

 

[Oxajil]

In Belgium, two politicians came up with a legislative proposal/bill to introduce "gender-aware education and 'high quality' relational and sexual education programmes". Earlier this week, a letter was published (in Flemish) by the Committee of Concerned Parents. They wrote a very interesting letter, mentioning some of the points members made in this thread. A snippet:

This bill is clearly ideologically tinted. The Committee of Concerned Parents asks why one ideology is forced onto all?

According to the bill, gender identity is important in addition to gender and sexual orientation. Gender identity refers to the extent to which a person is "feeling" male or female. Just as in the new transgender law, one does not take the biological data into account for determining the identity, but rather the feeling. Scientifically, the chromosomes of each cell determine the sex, so the biological data is more profound ... Now they are basing this assessment on how one feels: do I feel like a boy or a girl. ...

For various reasons, during the growth phase there may be a desire to belong to the other gender, but in how far is that of a lasting nature? Is it okay to confirm this from early on, and to allow a teenager to take hormones so that the characteristics of the gender of subjective preference become visible? How healthy is this and what are its side effects in the long term? Is this an identity crisis or a gender crisis?

Slowly they're trying to introduce these kinds of 'education' to schools involving young children, and topics on gender fluidity will most likely be included. :/ in their letter they also mentioned how anyone who disagrees with the bill is called 'scary, homophobic, guilty of discriminating'. They emphasize that it is not up to the state to enforce an ideology, and that the state ought to protect freedom of opinion.

 

[Atreides]

Slowly they're trying to introduce these kinds of 'education' to schools involving young children, and topics on gender fluidity will most likely be included. :/ in their letter they also mentioned how anyone who disagrees with the bill is called 'scary, homophobic, guilty of discriminating'. They emphasize that it is not up to the state to enforce an ideology, and that the state ought to protect freedom of opinion.

We see in this a primary tactic of the legislation. It's about empowering pathological people to "other" people with normal and healthy psychology. But this shouldn't work, because there is nothing immoral about discrimination, you do it every day. You discriminate against people who don't treat you well, choosing not to associate with them. You discriminate for relationships, you don't say yes to every boy who asks you to the prom. You discriminate when you choose a university.

The key idea behind morality is that something that is immoral, is never okay. There's no self-defense form of rape, or involuntary child molestation. Discrimination cannot be an immoral construct. It's the same for murder, murder is never okay. You can never accidentally plan to kill your neighbor and conceal the body in a furnace. There's no such thing accidental adultery (whoops, slipped on a wet floor and landed in your bedroom with your wife). All morals are things you can live without ever doing. It may be tougher not getting what you want, but society is better off if you don't.

Psychopaths never understand this, so their morality is an impoverished facsimile of natural moral sentiment. Society and social norms are usually a conspiracy to prevent you from doing things you'll regret, and ending up in situations that will hurt you and your community.

 

[Cyre2067]

While reading through the above comments I have to agree - toxins in the food - especially plastics - are likely to mimic hormones. We've got birth control hormones in the water supplies in every major city that do not get filtered out when the water is recycled. So how many women are taking birth control, the excess leaving through their urine, and then that getting recycled in water treatment plants only to be ingested by folks who don't distill their water or get it from a well. Granted, it's incredibly diluted, but that doesn't make it harmless.

If you add in the way western medicine looks at cholesterol like the plague, and even to the point of using dangerous drugs to regulate its levels, you're setting people up for biochemical disaster. If you don't have enough cholesterol to make your normal hormones and you get synthetic crap from the food and water of course the biology is going to go haywire. Men may start to feel like women or visa versa. It's also going to vary depending on the genetic lottery and how susceptible your system is to these changes.

Then add in the fact that doctors aren't educated about this at all, and that folks who start to act a bit like the other gender are immediately embraced by the transcommunity. They're given more artificial hormones to accelerate an abnormal process, adding more dysfunction on top of an already messed up biochemistry. Mark my words, folks that take artificial hormones aren't going to fare well as they age. What is effectively a biological cause for depression gets shifted to their psychological situation of being trans in a cruel cis world - et voila! You have a ripe group of victims who espouse post-modernist philosophy.

Anyone who suggests anything is wrong is ostracized as some sort of variant of a racist/homophobe/nazi and becomes the target of ridicule. Jordan Peterson for but one example. Rational discussion is shut down with loud obnoxious chants and refusal to even have a discussion because to have a mature rational discussion with the likes of you somehow grants your position a modicum of validity which must be denied at all costs. To have a discussion says "well I concede that you're worth listening to." At some level they probably sense the incorrectness of it all, but to start down that path results in the destruction of their carefully, socially constructed, new identity.

 

[Cosmos]

Speaking of toxins and foods that encourage mental instability. I recently came across this video where Putin is asked what his favourite food is:

https://youtu.be/59TagE0Lxwk?t=48s

He says that his favourite food is porridge made out of the traditional russian cereals, rice and buckwheat. He doesn't eat oatmeal and occasionally millet. I wasn't aware that rice and especially buckwheat is the primary way people eat in russia. I checked and that indeed seems to be the case.

So what other countries are also primarily eating foods that have almost zero gluten? Other eastern countries like china for example. And what countries exhibit a fairly rational and decent national and international policy today? Exactly the countries like russia and china. Of course we have also countries like japan and south korea who don't cope that well in that regard, even though they eat similarly, but compared to countries like USA, UK, France and Germany, one could argue that they still have far less insanity present.

Maybe what people eat (and have eaten for several generations) really plays a far bigger role then we have thought?

Here is one interesting article about the consumption of buckwheat in russia:

Buckwheat: Russia’s miracle food

Century follows century featuring war, famine, revolution, and other catastrophes. The Russians just keep on trucking. How ever do they manage it?
The answer may lie in their regular consumption of buckwheat. This hardy grain has been a staple of Eastern Europeans since ancient times, and Russians can lay a particular claim to buckwheat: the region surrounding Lake Baikal is the first recorded area where buckwheat was regularly cultivated. Long appreciated in Asia, buckwheat appears mostly in noodle form in that region, as opposed to Eastern Europe where buckwheat kernels, called “groats” are toasted, then boiled with water and eaten either as porridge, or as a side dish in place of rice or potatoes.

From the steppes of Central Asia and the plains of Siberia, buckwheat made its way West via historical trade and invasion routes, under the name “Saracen Wheat,” in honor of the Moors of southern Spain. Buckwheat’s short growing season and ability to thrive in poor soil made it an affordable lifeline for much of Europe’s poor agrarian population. It was the Dutch who christened the hardy grain in honor of the Holy Scripture, which they believed had survived similar adversary throughout the centuries. They called the equally tenacious grain, “boek weit,” or “book wheat,” and were the first to bring it to the New World where it enjoyed widespread popularity 19th Century, but is largely ignored today. This is a shame since buckwheat packs a powerful nutritional punch: “It delivers more protein than rice, wheat, millet, or corn…but contains no potentially problematic gluten,” writes best-selling dietitian and author, Dr. Nicholas Perricone, MD, who puts buckwheat at the top of his list of grains and pulses for his patients.

Buckwheat is a versatile constant in Russian cuisine. I first encountered it in St. Petersburg in the late 1980s, [Putins home town] when food supplies were sketchy and unreliable. My friend Asiya and her mother had buckwheat or “grechka” as the Russians call it, with almost every meal. During my frequent visits to their hospitable apartment, I came to enjoy and appreciate the grain, not only for its nutty flavor, but also for the amount of energy it imparted. One serving of grechka set one up for a long day. Is it any wonder that Russia’s miracle food makes and appearance at almost every meal? Buckwheat porridge for breakfast is followed by buckwheat as a side dish to meat, pairing particularly well with both game and offal. The real match made in heaven, however, is buckwheat and that other great Russian staple: mushrooms! Buckwheat and mushroom casserole is a perennial Russian favorite, being to a Russian émigré what little cookies are to Proust: the taste of times gone by. This classic Russian dish does well as a hearty garnish, stuffing, or on its own as a vegetarian main course. So, give it a try. Who knows…it might just advert your next catastrophe!

Especially in the west, something mayor has shifted in the way people eat. The usual wheat people eat here is packed full of gluten and other stuff, since it started to be overbred a couple of decades ago. Even about 50 years or so ago, people ate variants of wheat that were far less loaded with gluten her in the west. Still though, it wasn't buckwheat, as far as I know, that was the main food, just less potent earlier variants of normal wheat.

It seems the more gluten people consumed here in the west (and sugar as well) the more their mental faculties went south in general. In russia and other eastern countries on the other hand, to this day the normal wheat never really got popular for the main consumption and things like buckwheat and rice were and are still very popular as the main food.

Naturally one wonders if there is a strong connection there.

 

[Anthony]

I was thinking about where all this transgender nonsense could lead in the future. Today I came a cross a description of Daniel Estulin's book TransEvolution: The Coming Age of Human Deconstruction.

Arguing that the race to better humankind is about to go to a new dimension as a result of a nanotechnological revolution, this enthralling read purports that the depth of progress and technological development is such that people in the very near future may no longer be fully human. "TransEvolution "discusses the transition from human to someone--or something--new and different and the increasing trend of implementing prosthetics, organ implants, bionic eyes, hearing aids, and other technological augmentations. Humans are capable of doing things they never imagined would be possible 20 years ago, and the rapid growth of this trend is nowhere near its end. But do the benefits of these advancements come with a price? Is humanity in danger because of this domination of science and technology? Bestselling author Daniel Estulin describes his vision of the future in which he believes the elite will employ their Promethean plans.

I think the whole topic is interesting if we remember that, for instance, the C's and Karla Turner mentioned that the PTB's have plans for creating a new physical "model".

 

[Neil]

For whatever it's worth, here's Barbara Marciniak's views on transgenderism. It seems to agree with a lot of what is said here, especially Laura's comment about gender benders getting into the food supply.

http://<iframe width="854" height="...lE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[bjorb]

For whatever it's worth, here's Barbara Marciniak's views on transgenderism. It seems to agree with a lot of what is said here, especially Laura's comment about gender benders getting into the food supply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK0nH9yaFlE

Thanks Neil,

That part about Atlantis, that there was to much genetic engineering going on. First they mixed up genders, then they brought it a step further. I don't get why the Atlanteans turned themselves into part animal, part human. For sexual gratification. That's pretty messed up to say the least.

Just shows how crazier it still can get. Luckily we don't have signs of those yet. Allthough: :/

http://<iframe width="1280" height=...tA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[angelburst29]

A video on "gender identity" and how it is being introduced into kindergarden's and grade schools and being promoted by media.

I'm horrified by what I'm witnessing in this development. I still carry a "guilt complex" for following a traditional trend in celebrating "the Easter Bunny" and "Santa Clause" when my children were young, including warning them about the Boggyman (that could snatch them) if they didn't stay close to me when we were in public. As they got older, I explained the symbolic nature behind the characters, only to suddenly realize, it created a certain amount of distrust between us. I had broken the shell of one of their belief systems, one in which I had promoted and they no longer began to trust me or what I said to them. It took a number of years and steady maternal nurturing - to gain their trust again.

When they got married and now have little one's of their own, with both of their spouses working in the educational system, I was able to sit down with the four of them and discuss my experience, so they don't make the same mistake. I was relieved to learn, by their own experiences, that they preferred to explain to their children, what the Holiday represented and the symbolic nature of the characters associated with it.

Interesting enough, "transgender" was also brought up in the conversation. The general outlook remains traditional - if born a boy, you're a male and if born a girl, a female. Anything in between was referred to (in our conversation, anyway) "Cousin It" a character from the TV show - The Adam's Family.

In regards to "Gay Right's" - they deal with it but work around it, for they don't identify with that promotion. To them, it's a social construct, a label put on something that's not clearly defined.

Now, if that wasn't enough to sort out, we're now faced with "transgenders" visiting our daycares and elementary schools - asking the kids if they want to grow up - to be a transgender - like in this video???


Watch This and You'll Notice Something Weird! (2017-2018)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z0SgGwrzxA (16:04 min.)

 

[bjorb]

2 covers I found, just shows how relentlessly they are pushing the agenda ever on-wards.

Time Magazine cover March 2017

National Geographic cover January 2017


[quote author= Angelburst29 ]Watch This and You'll Notice Something Weird! (2017-2018)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z0SgGwrzxA (16:04 min.)[/quote]

Thanks for the video Angelburst, I'm posting it again at full display, just to encourage others to watch it :P It really get's the message across. OSIT.

http://<iframe width="854" height="...xA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(16:04 min.)

Those 'modified' people like seen in the video are so much in 'love' with their body. They totally identify with it. It's Ego worship taken to the extreme. That's what they are essential promoting.

My 4 cents from observing them.

 

[Aliana]

Maybe what people eat (and have eaten for several generations) really plays a far bigger role then we have thought?

It seems the more gluten people consumed here in the west (and sugar as well) the more their mental faculties went south in general. In russia and other eastern countries on the other hand, to this day the normal wheat never really got popular for the main consumption and things like buckwheat and rice were and are still very popular as the main food.

Naturally one wonders if there is a strong connection there.

No, doubt. Another problem with wheat is that that the fields are soaked in glyphosate / Roundup prior to harvest.

Roundup significantly disrupts the functioning of beneficial bacteria in the gut and contributes to permeability of the intestinal wall and consequent expression of autoimmune disease symptoms.

In synergy with disruption of the biosynthesis of important amino acids via the shikimate pathway, glyphosate inhibits the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes produced by the gut microbiome. CYP enzymes are critical to human biology because they detoxify the multitude of foreign chemical compounds, xenobiotics, that we are exposed to in our modern environment today.

As a result, humans exposed to glyphosate through use of Roundup in their community or through ingestion of its residues on industrialized food products become even more vulnerable to the damaging effects of other chemicals and environmental toxins they encounter!

In addition to glyphosate, there’s Atrazine – the second most commonly used herbicide in the US and thus it is pervasive in the environment - nearly 90 percent of the water tested by the USDA has atrazine residue in it.

A 2011 study published in The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology summarized a huge swath of research on atrazine, dating back to 1997.

The study confirmed what researchers have been saying for years: atrazine “demasculinizes” and “feminizes” vertebrate male gonads. In other words, atrazine is a “decrease in male gonadal characteristics,” because the herbicide shrinks testicles and reduces sperm counts. By “feminizing” male gonads, atrazine can lead to the growth of ovaries in males.

And while much of the media attention has been on how male frogs can turn into females, what this comprehensive study found is that the effects “do not occur merely across populations, species or even genera or orders, but across vertebrate classes.” That means they occur across amphibian, fish, mammal and reptile species.

The researchers believe these scary changes occur because atrazine reduces production of male hormones, while increasing the effect of estrogen, a female hormone. The atrazine levels that frogs which change sex are exposed to is less than what’s legally allowed in our water — it occurs at levels as low as 0.1 parts per billion, or PPB. In comparison, the EPA allows atrazine at levels 30 times higher than this in our drinking water — 3 ppb.

 

[Atreides]

An interesting collection of the stuff going on at Evergreen. Not specifically to do with Social Construction of Gender, but the same crazy liberal antics:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...yI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Carl]

An interesting collection of the stuff going on at Evergreen. Not specifically to do with Social Construction of Gender, but the same crazy liberal antics:

http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

That was one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a long time. Gotta say I enjoyed the youtube comments this time.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Post-modernism... The word itself is preemptively boring. The merest, fleeting thought of reading about it is one of the most boring notions I have heard. Yet, you all have convinced me that I better take a look at this just to understand what is going on and to "immunize" myself a bit.

My first reactions over all this gender stuff for the last couple of years or so, other than finding it boring, were to think, "Up and coming adults find stuff to complain about. Then, they get jobs. They shout out some radical ideas, but get over it to some degree, and society moves on."

I first thought that the homosexuals were a good example of how this is a productive cycle. Though we have spoken over the last few years that gay rights might have morphed into something more divisive, all in all, their strategy has worked out quite brilliantly. Homosexuality is more or less normalized enough to where, even if there are still the inevitable bullies, a gay person can generally find a support structure so that they can socialize openly and not be pushed increasingly farther to the boundaries of society and thus to increasingly abnormal behavior. Bottom line: Beating up folks because they are weird is bad and decreasing that trend is good.

What has my attention from this thread is, for lack of better words, the legislative threat posed by this social justice movement. I had never heard of Peterson before this thread. How clearly he outlines the shoddiness of these social justice legislative initiatives, not just the internal contradictions, but the perils of narrowing the boundaries of free speech, spoke to me.

My first impression of this post-modern movement, largely gleaned from this thread, is that it is a manifestation of authoritarianism. I speak of this in the spirit of that ?psychologist? who wrote about the authoritarian personality. And I would like to recall here that we have noticed on this board the possible overlap between the authoritarian personality and the percentage of the population that Lobachewski cited as being more susceptible to psychopathic influences at the societal scale.

And for this reason, I was still minimizing what is here on this thread. After all, the "American right" has their nasty, Authoritarian peons. Anecdotally, the Zerohedge comment section has become a foul morass of overt racism since Trump. The American left are not totally incorrect that Trump's disregard for what had become the social norm of public communication has empowered real racists to feel comfortable spewing out ridiculous ideas about how much better everything would be if we could only get rid of X group of people.

But my second thoughts are that this "American left" flavor of Authoritarianism is more dangerous. The right version is completely on the nose. After European fascism and the civil rights struggle in the States, spittingly angry men in scary looking uniforms is just too telegraphed. You can see it coming from a mile away. But this leftist movement... Many of these folks are going to good schools. They will be Washington DC's next wave of interns and eventually have staff positions. They will eventually run for office. Right now, their destructive potential is much greater than right-leaning authoritarians.

On the bright side, this thread introduced me to Jordan Peterson. If you look at his talks beyond current controversies, he seems to be someone trying to really understand life and be able to share about that quest. He speaks about transcending the sufferings of life and seeking meaning in how you live. It is good stuff.

So to end this post on a light note, Youtube started suggesting Peterson videos to me. I saw one where he is explaining the mythical nation of Kekistan to a podcast host (and by the way, anyone on this board that can't identify with the first 2 minutes of this video might be in the wrong bar):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjWFzcQWuxI

This lead me to a rather well done parody of a famous Simon & Garfunkel song. It is filled with kek-ological terminology :P but in light of this discussion, it made me laugh a few times. The "Sound of Social Justice" (did I need to add that this is very far from politically correct?):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Knuwl2ZQXE

Thank you for the thought provoking thread.