I’m not afraid from answering questions or engaging with hard concepts…

You absolutley are.

You just redefine any hard concepts you encounter as rambling, then refuse to engage with it.

You even admit to this readily:

I’m not interested in responding to the rest of your rambling…

Conveniently, what you’ve labeled as rambling is all the comparative analysis and supporting studies I’ve provided that immediately prove what I’m saying as valid.

We very much could be having that conversation if you were willing to listen.

Instead, you’re trying to convince yourself this conversation isn’t reasonable unless we ignore everything I’ve said that you don’t like.

Here’s another question to prove my point:

• Can you explain what parts of what I’m saying is rambling to you? (Specifically, direct examples of what I’ve said that comes across as “confused or incoherent.”)

I would very much like this list, as it’s the same list of hard concepts you keep running away from.

Thank you! All good. Appreciate the notice, and great mod work.

I mean, he did the same with COVID. And despite the fact that it killed more Americans than in all the wars we’ve ever fought in combined, here he is doing it again. People are just going to keep dying, and the media will continue to normalize it.

What “hard questions” have I avoided?

How about answering the following question first to prove you actually intend to answer what you’ve avoided:

• Do you think vaccines cause Autism?

I’ll bet you do.

It’s the same identically flawed reasoning you’re using for men and testosterone.

Specifically:

• People who are vaccinated are more PrOnE to Autism!
• Men with testosterone are more PrOnE to violence!

Do you also have thought terminating memes about vaccines in that vein too? Maybe something equally sarcastic and dismissive like the Kool Aid man bursting through a wall saying “NoT aLL VaXxED haVe Autism!”

Do you think everyone who got the COVID vaccine is also prone to death too?

What you are completely failing to grasp is what “prone to” means in an analytical and scientific context. And through that failure of comprehension you are driving through a dump truck of bullshit trying to convince me it’s fertilizer.

With that context, here’s the “hard question” you keep avoiding (this is the third time I’ve asked):

What is the difference between men who are violent and men who are not?

This is the same as if I were to ask:

What is the difference between those who are vaccinated, and those who are vaccinated and have autism?

These are the questions that actually get us meaningful answers in science. You shouldn’t be avoiding them.

I’ve provided my hypothetical answer to this question, specifically, that men can adapt to managing their increased emotions from testosterone over time - and I supported it with a study you dismissed due to poor reading comprehension or malice.

You have provided no answer, and have only avoided this question as if it doesn’t need asked. This is despite this question literally being the whole point of this conversation.

Instead, you’ve spent this time making it very obvious you have no interest in what I have to say. Especially when I clearly proved you are only arguing on assumptions, having interpreted the source you provided wildly out of context.

You dismissed all that as “rambling and illogical” because you can’t admit to being wrong - that you clearly came to the wrong conclusion from your source.

So now you are pretending to need help seeing these questions and details despite how you’ve been ignoring them due to your own insecurities in the first place.

I fully expect you’ll ignore these two questions further, and asked them simply to prove that assumption right.

This is about the response I expected.

Nothing I said was idiotic. If anything, it was oversimplified. I even provided analogies.

But like I said, your overreaction was expected. It is the common behaviour of people who prefer avoiding hard questions instead of considering answers they don’t like.

It’s hard to admit you’re possibly wrong. A “traditionally masculine” behaviour you keep providing great examples of. Quite to the contrary of your own conclusions.

Thank you for clarifying that this conversation is exclusively about your opinion, not the clear facts outside them you keep ignoring willingly.

You can have the conversation with yourself from here.

The APA defines traditional masculinity as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population.

That is a definition from an academic journal you are clearly taking out of context. It is not an actual study, experiment, or metric.

Nothing in your link confirms the AMOUNT of men being raised in poor conditions.

It is simply about “large segments” of men being exposed to negative portrayals of masculinity.

Specifically this exposure is defined as what’s seen in social media, films, television, ads, podcasts etc.

It is NOT, in any way:

• Specifying this exposure as being a major part of men’s families.
• Specifiying this exposure as being a major part of men’s upbringing.
• Specifiying that men are only affected negatively by this exposure.

These are all ASUMPTIONS you are making.

This article quotes ZERO studies reaching these conclusions.

You are treating the amount of “traditional masculinity” exposure in social media, as if it is a ready part of the majority of young men’s upbringing that’s already affecting them negatively.

As a logical comparison, if this article was defining “traditional masculinity” as something like a billboard with Joe Rogan advertising McDonald’s, you are coming to the conclusion that the majority of young mens families are shoving Big Macs into their mouth.

That’s not what this article is saying at all.

You are even avoiding the clarifying statements in this link to reach the wrong conclusion. From your link:

…What the APA report seeks to address is male suffering, of which experts say there is no shortage…" We often talk about gender in terms of women … getting the short end of the stick. … Well, masculinity isn’t easy either," Jennifer Carlson, a sociology professor at the University of Arizona… "It isn’t easy to be a man in the United States. Demands put on men — whether it’s to be the protector, to be the provider, to respond to situations in certain ways, to prove yourself as a man — end up being not just outwardly destructive but also inwardly destructive."

So, literally, traditional masculinity is bad, and it’s destroying men. NOT traditional masculinity is being forced onto the majority of young men. It is just a big part of current media, and that’s affecting men poorly.

Also from your article:

The APA guidelines stress that psychologists must confront their own biases about masculinity, and encourages them to: Promote healthy intimate relationships among boys and men. Address issues of male privilege and power. Promote healthy father involvement. Strive to understand the factors that lead to male aggression and violence.

That is certainly what I’ve been striving to look for in this thread. The encouragement this article provides in searching for such an answer is absoule proof that it has not been provided yet, especially from this article.

You have made incredible leaps of logic not at all supported by the link you provided.

You’ve moved the goalposts.

I have not, in anyway, moved the goalposts.

I used basic logic, specifically the process of elimination to point towards a clear result:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_of_elimination

Process of elimination is a logical method to identify an entity of interest among several ones by excluding all other entities.

I did this, specifically, to avoid the pedantic argument it looked like you wanted to start, and now are very clearly continuing.

She’s not expressing anger, she is expressing distress…

Specifically, this is pedantic.

You aren’t allowing for the individual interpretation of her behavior in this video to be anything but distress. Based entirely on your own observation that it is distress. I, and a bunch of others could very easily interpret her behaviour differently.

Which is all pedantic, because it doesn’t matter.

“Distress” is just as much of a negative-stress response as anger.

https://dictionary.apa.org/distress

… a negative stress response, often involving negative affect and physiological reactivity: a type of stress that results from being overwhelmed by demands, losses, or perceived threats.

Quite literally, you are trying to argue that distress and anger are different emotions, despite both of them coming from the same place.

You are basically saying that Pepsi isn’t cola flavored because the can it comes in doesn’t look like Coke.

It’s still cola. You are just trying to redefine what that is.

So, even if this person is feeling distress in this video, it doesn’t really prove she’s managing negative stress well. It just proves, only to you, that she isn’t “angry.”

Which makes you appear right, but does absolutley nothing to further this conversation.

Which is why you then chose to avoid all the questions I asked as if they didn’t matter. Specifically:

Whats the difference between men who are violent and men who aren’t?

ALL men are exposed to testosterone. SOME men cause more violence.

ALL does NOT = SOME.

But you very much seem to not understand this when you insist:

It would only require [men] to be more prone to [violence] relative to women, which they are, objectively.

If they ALL have TESTOSTERONE. They would ALL be violent. They aren’t. You even acknowledge this by saying “more prone” to violence relative to women. What you don’t acknowledge is that:

Not ALL men are violent. OBJECTIVELY. Do you agree?

Unless you want to admit to being bigoted. The answer is no.

You’ve already twisted facts to favor a world view that you’ve only assumed to exist. In addition to the pedantic nature of your critique, I don’t feel this conversation is worth continuing unless I know I’m talking to someone who rationally wants to stay on topic more than get on a Soap box for attention.

Not ALL men are violent. OBJECTIVELY. Do you agree?

That’s a pretty big assumption, isn’t it?

No bigger than the one you’re making to the contrary:

I think most men are growing up in an unhealthy environment.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Unless you want to quantify what a healthy environment is, or provide meaningful research that suggests you’re right here, I’m unwilling to do either for you. I’m not going to believe you’re right just because you say you are, and you clearly feel the same.

The term “Karen” is a product of modern day socioeconomic conditions…

Agreed.

However, I disagree about it not involving anger. Yes, absolutley they act in an entitled way. But that entitlement is very often expressed through clearly angry or upset behaviors. Specifically: frustration / violence / “I wanna speak to your manager” verbal harassment.

In all seriousness, could you provide an anecdote, even a made up one, where someone gets called a “Karen” yet their behaviour doesn’t involve frustration / anger / verbal harassment?

I honestly cannot imagine one in which that person would be called a Karen, and not simply entitled. (However, I admit I very much could be wrong here.)

For your overall point that exposure to an emotion makes it easier to control, I don’t think it holds up. Statistically, men are much more likely to commit acts of violence…

You do realize if I’m wrong about that, it would be ALL men who commit acts of violence right?

What, in your opinion, is the difference that seperates violent and non-violent men if not the development of the capacity to emotionally regulate themselves better over time?

It has to be something, so if not that what is it?

The higher frequency of violence in men is actually more proof I’m right. Because that violence could be a result of those who haven’t learned to well manage the amplified feelings their testosterone generates. As men, they have T, but getting used to what that does to you after puberty isn’t easy. Those that adapt, cause no violence, those that struggle with it, do. Overall, the average rate of violence increases among men, but is not seen in all of them. Which is what’s observed in most studies as you’ve said.

I think it’s just as likely that a high degree of exposure to a particular emotion will be buried or suppressed in an unhealthy way, leading to outbursts.

This is very much a big part of the point I’m making too.

When first experiencing emotions that are intensely enhanced by sex hormones, people get easily overwhelmed. They don’t know how to stop those feelings from happening, so some end up burying them.

Doing so, PREVENTS those emotions from actually being felt or experienced. So the longer those go bottled up, the more explosive it becomes because the emotion has now compounded in its intensity, and the person who bottled it still has little to no experience or knowledge in which to handle it.

To be clear, running from or bottling emotions is not the same as experiencing them. And it’s certainly not the same as experiencing them frequently.

Those that FREQUENTLY experience the same intense emotions, eventually, have no need to bottle them. They understand what it feels like to be intensely sad, angry, etc and will not be afraid of that experience or lack the tools to well manage it. They learn, over time, to work with those feelings rather than against them.

Basically, the intensity of an emotion matters, but so does the frequency in which it is felt.

For example: If you are frequently, once a month, feeling amplified saddness due to your own hormones (NOT Depression, that’s entirely different) you probably have a damn good way of regulating that feeling so you can continue to function when you feel it.

In this example, there was likely a time that sadness was bottled, but because it was unavoidably happening once a month, over time, the use of bottling it becomes pointless. You quite literally get used to it, and learn to live with it. Bottling it is just a step on that journey.

For an emotion like sadness, that journey is much slower for men because they aren’t exposed to it as frequently as someone with sadness as a period symptom once a month.

This form of emotional adaptation is also looking pretty scientifically solid these days:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-25436-001

… the emotions are often misunderstood as entailing inflexibility and invariance. [There is] convergent empirical and theoretical work indicating that emotion adaptations calibrate to particularities of the situation, the self, and the socioecological environment.

That’s hilarious about Snickers, and very well said! :)

There’s been a lot of very interesting studies that have been done in the last 5 years or so about how our bodies more essential functions have odd ties to our hormone levels. Imo, It’s fascinating to say the least.

For example: one of the more interesting ones I’ve looked at involved a study of young men that proved a strong correlation between low testosterone and eating disorders.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32643144/

Consistent with animal data and prior research in adolescent boys, men with lower testosterone reported significantly higher levels of dysregulated eating symptoms even after controlling for depressive symptoms, body mass index, and age.

Overall, these scientists further studies are now somewhat suggesting there’s a “sweet spot” for the amount of testosterone flowing in males that would make it easier for them to regulate good eating habits.

In turn, this implies some new opportunities to explore treating eating disorders with low dose hormones. (At least in males).

Which is a very long way for me to make the joke that scientifically, you COULD make the argument that “Snickers satisfies” the hunger Testosterone creates. ;)

Simple:

People with money used it to convince our government that money is the same as people, but more important. So it’s now “We the people (with the most money).”

Oh I agree completely. Just to clarify: The DNC absolutely will not get it or care. This is what I was describing as more “apparant” now.

I am in no way a biological essentialist and am using simpler terms people are more familiar with to make my point.

I find it rather insulting that you would come to this conclusion after I readily explained how little our biology determines our identity, and how it can quite literally be changed through hormones, specifically:

End of my last comment:

… all it takes is those hormones, and your physical biology will change with them… our bodies have the flexibility to easily become the other gender…

How could that possibly come across as Terfy?

We are literally agreeing with each other about the trans experience too:

… what happened for us was not the hormones that made us less angry etc but more acceptance and understanding from both others and ourselves. We can still be very angry… but it is much less likely now…

That is, you admit there has been a change in the frequency of your anger after transitioning, correct?

To be very clear: I’m not at all doubting the roles that acceptance, understanding, a good partner, therapists, and more have in regulating our emotions, or the extreme effort you have put into doing the same for yourself.

I’m simply saying: it is possible these hormones also contribute to our emotional state, specifically amplifying the emotions you already have as a person - rather than not affecting our emotional state at all as concluded by the books you mention.

Books, specifically, that actual Terfs OFTEN misquote to jump to a black and white conclusion about gender and hormones.

https://trans-express.lgbt/post/185913420710/on-how-terfs-misrepresent-science-and-feminism

Bookmark this article and refer to it the next time a TERF stars using… Cordelia Fine… to invalidate trans people.

Which is, admittedly, what I felt you were doing in your first comment. Specifically, in how you implied there’s no grey area left in science that’s still determining the influences our hormones have over our emotions.

Which, as of 2024, is starting to look unquestionably real:

https://www.broadwayclinic.com/article/how-are-mind-hormones-linked-to-emotional-shifts

Hormonal fluctuations significantly influence mood, particularly with reproductive hormones at various life stages. Recognizing these patterns can be the first step toward managing mood more effectively.

Which is exactly what I’ve previously stated.

I have several people in my life that have likewise transitioned. I even know of someone that was born intersex, and transitioned to female in their late 20’s.

Conversations with them have been enlightening, as most agree that hormones are at least a PART of the reason they too felt better about their emotional states after transitioning. To quote one in particular, “Anger juice (T) is no longer the only fuel this body takes.”

It’s not so much managing the influence of one’s own biochemical factors, but their consequences.

We absolutley have no control over these hormones releasing in our body, and by what amount (unless prescribed as an Rx).

All we can do is tolerate the feelings we get from them, and eventually, through exposure, understand that we’re being controlled by them.

The example you provided is valid, but I would debate the conclusion you are drawing from it.

Woman absolutley have an increase in certain sex hormones hitting them once a month, but they have no control over the amount or frequency. All they can do is bear with it, including cramps, and grow to understand their behaviour is being influenced by the chemically enhanced emotions they’re now experiencing.

I’m not a fan of being in constant pain, so having to experience intense amounts of it in my lower abdomen once a month would certainly make me irratable at that time. Hormones or otherwise.

The ability one has to identify WHEN their emotions are being influenced by these chemicals is what gives us any power over them. Regardless of sex, our worst behaviors often happen when we haven’t realized we’re currently emotionally compromised by these chemicals.

I’ve seen a man get pissed off at a small rock he stumbled over, then kick it, break his toe, and proceed to harrass the strangers trying to help him. All because he was hungry, which can trigger the release of testosterone.

He didn’t know he was emotionally compromised. And lacked the ability to recognize it in time before breaking his toe.

Very similar anecdotes certainly exist between both sexes.

Which to me implies a universal struggle for us to understand our bodies well enough to know when we’re being emotionally influenced by them regardless of our sex.

I appreciate the suggestion. I’m familiar with these books. Imo, they both jump to conclusions about the large grey areas between what is and isn’t bunk when it comes to sex hormones rather than admit we scientifically have no solid answers about those questions and are still looking.

I encourage you to have a good talk with any trans person that has transitioned. Their very valid and common experiences taking these hormones to transition heavily suggest otherwise.

As all it takes is those hormones, and your physical biology will change with them. (Men will grow breasts, and Women facial hair.) Which means unquestionably, that these hormones are tied to our biological sex, and likely the behaviour associated with it, seeing as our bodies have the flexibility to easily become the other gender with them.

I think the difference is actually between how each sex biologically regulates emotion.

We’re essentially the same, the only difference being a tweak of brain chemistry and hormones.

Most of those differences affect mostly how and when we feel emotions.

So while there certainly are differences, we both feel the same feelings. It’s just when we feel them, and the frequency in which we feel them, that differs.

For example: Men biologically produce more testosterone. So its much more likely they’ll have quick tempers, constant arousal, and aggresive competition as a result. While these emotions are difficult to regulate, which is very commonly seen in young males, the persistent exposure to testosterone does eventually lead to better control over the emotions it amplifies. (Assuming these males are aging in a healthy environment).

Women, unquestionably, can have these same exact emotions. However, due to the lower levels of testosterone, the frequency in which these emotions are experienced are far less than men. Which means over time, these emotions are less likely to be easily regulated, simply because the chemicals that produce them aren’t as persistently experienced.

That is, an older male in a frustrating situation is less likely to get angry simply because they’ve been getting angry their whole life and know how to better bury their anger because of it. While older females may not have experienced anger / testosterone as much, so in frustrating situations don’t have the experience needed to know how to regulate their temper better.

Imo, this is why we have the term “Karen” with no male equivalent.

For biological women, they produce more estrogen (and some other cool shit) which is why they tend to have more friends (it’s the social hormone), express sadness easier, and also nest-build / want to have children.

Likewise they become experts at these emotions as they age, but get tortured as young teens who have to feel these extreme things for the first time.

Men, likewise feel these emotions, but since it’s far less frequent, also have issues controlling them. That’s why men have less friends, fear crying in front of people, and take so long to know if they want kids.

They feel the same emotions, but far less frequently so they have no idea how to regulate them. Men treat their sadness like anger, bury it, then want their GF to also be their psychiatrist since they have no clue what to do with those feelings they bury.

Imo, that’s why the trope of the insecure male seeking lover / therapist exists as well.

That’s all to say, we feel the same things. Just in different amounts at different times. Depending on when you look, either sex could be viewed as "more emotional. "

Don’t forget Bernie.

DNC had the same exact response. With the same exact Trump.

Took the DNC ten fucking years to pull their head out of their ass long enough to complain about young men populism being the key to victory, despite literally pissing away all the young men populism voters they had with Bernie Sanders.

Thank fuck it’s now blatantly obvious with Zohran.

meteotsunamis… are much smaller.

Democrats may not be complicit, but the DNC sure as shit is.

They take money from all the same donors as the GOP and are using to it fight their own popular candidates. Which isn’t new, considering Bernie Sanders and the DNC torpedoing his organically grown young male audience so hard they voted for Trump.

The DNC told you to blame those who didn’t vote Hillary instead of admitting she was by far the least popular candidate among the young men that keep voting for Trump.

The DNC is unquestionably liable for favoring their money-interest candidates over popular ones, so the GOP just said, fuck it, run the popular TV idiot and have been winning since.

Literally, in the last decade the DNC fought in court for their right to pick their own candidates over the results of their own primary (& charter), then just fucking stopped having primaries all together.

To believe, unquestionably, that the DNC isn’t at least partially responsible for how fucked things are is admitting you do not understand the problem that’s fucking us.

While traditional tsunamis are caused by seafloor movement like earthquakes, meteotsunamis are linked to fast-moving weather conditions such as thunderstorms and are much smaller.

Thanks for the explanation. That is what I was thinking. His failure to use quotes is possibly no different than someone failing to capitalize the first letter of their uncle named jack.

Imo, this was far more likley a grammar error than an intentional alteration of the original Jefferson quote.

Like Abraham Lincoln said, those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it. Of course that God being Jake Paul, Ohio rizz phantom tax.

Did the removed quote use quotation marks to indicate where the quote ended and the personal thoughts of OP began?

Because there is a considerable difference in intent depending on where quotation marks are used.

Similarly, it’s the difference capitalization makes between “helping your uncle Jack off a horse” and bestiality.

No offense, but it feels like OPs comment was removed because you considered it bestiality / a call to violence, when it very likely was just a poor usage of grammar.