Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Jarhyn]

Why don't you just go ahead and push that all the way? Shouldn't kids get the "right" to decide when their adrenal gland fires off, and how much growth hormone they get?

Nobody has ever done that, so I couldn't comment. My expectation is that giving direct control to reduce the output of a gland may be a positive development in medical technology. Let's say someone is going into a situation where they need to avoid adrenal response for whatever reason.

And, I would say there are circumstances where we could use more fine control about activating it. Again, it's probably not necessary unless they have a really bad response to it.

I think we should listen to their reasons and consider them if they ask for such things.

We generally don't decide for anyone how much growth hormone they get, either, but often we do listen when people have major objections to what their body is geared to give them.

If people want to use science to make themselves look differently, past a certain age, I would cheer them.

I would expect them to hold static on any such permanent changes from a current state until they have reached a mental age where they are fully informed and capable of acting on that information for their own reasons and intents. That would mean waiting until 21, or more likely 24+ for surgery like a permanent adrenal mod.

I guess my point is that your constant indignance over the audacity of others to seek to halt modifications to their body is simply vapid

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Instagram: “Much of the attacks on the LGBT+ community …”

Much of the attacks on the LGBT+ community are, whether consciously or not, deflecting attention away from one of the actual largest sources of SA: abusive heterosexual men. And it’s actually the LGBT+ community doing much of the work of challenging those same patriarchal and oppressive norms that uphold the kinds of silence that benefits abusers. It is critical that we stand with our trans and LGBT+ neighbors. Their safety is all our safety. (Stats from @barccofficial + @ywcamissoula sites)

SA = sexual abuse.

She said that culture wars are a way of distracting attention from real problems. She then went into sexual misconduct by heterosexual cis men, which she said was nearly all sexual abusers, even men who rape other men.

She was first hit on by a man when she was about 13 -14 years old and was still wearing braces, and a lot of women say that their first time of being hit on was 11, 12, 13, 14 years old. Then when she was in her early 20's and was working as a waitress in an outdoor café, she noticed a man in a nearby car "pleasuring himself" watching the waitresses go back and forth.

So she says that what LGBT people allegedly do is projection of what many cishet men themselves do.

 

[lpetrich]

 Anne Fausto-Sterling

In a 1993 paper titled "The Five Sexes", Fausto-Sterling laid out a thought experiment considering an alternative model of gender containing five sexes: male, female, merm, ferm, and herm.[3] She later said that the paper "had intended to be provocative, but I had also written with tongue firmly in cheek".[4]

The Five Sexes:

• Female
• Ferm - female pseudohermaphrodite
• Herm - hermaphrodite
• Merm - male pseudohermaphrodite
• Male

Pseudohermaphroditism - Wikipedia

Pseudohermaphroditism is a condition in which an individual has a matching chromosomal and gonadal tissue (ovary or testis) sex, but mismatching external genitalia.

Female pseudohermaphroditism refers to an individual with ovaries and external genitalia resembling those of a male. Male pseudohermaphroditism refers to an individual with testes and external genitalia resembling those of a female.[1][2] In some cases, external sex organs associated with pseudohermaphroditism appear intermediate between a typical clitoris and penis. Thus, pseudohermaphroditism is sometimes not identified until puberty or adulthood.

True hermaphroditism - Wikipedia

True hermaphroditism, sometimes referred to as ovotesticular syndrome,[1][2] is an intersex condition in which an individual is born with both ovarian and testicular tissue. Commonly, one or both gonads is an ovotestis containing both types of tissue.[3][better source needed]

Although it is similar in some ways to mixed gonadal dysgenesis, the conditions can be distinguished histologically.[4]

These are examples of  Intersex conditions.

 Hermaphrodite - having both sexes of reproductive organs.  Simultaneous hermaphroditism - at the same time,  Sequential hermaphroditism - from changing one's sex, like clownfish (m to f) and wrasse fish (f to m).

 

[Toni]

Why don't you just go ahead and push that all the way? Shouldn't kids get the "right" to decide when their adrenal gland fires off, and how much growth hormone they get?

Nobody has ever done that, so I couldn't comment. My expectation is that giving direct control to reduce the output of a gland may be a positive development in medical technology. Let's say someone is going into a situation where they need to avoid adrenal response for whatever reason.

And, I would say there are circumstances where we could use more fine control about activating it. Again, it's probably not necessary unless they have a really bad response to it.

I think we should listen to their reasons and consider them if they ask for such things.

We generally don't decide for anyone how much growth hormone they get, either, but often we do listen when people have major objections to what their body is geared to give them.

If people want to use science to make themselves look differently, past a certain age, I would cheer them.

I would expect them to hold static on any such permanent changes from a current state until they have reached a mental age where they are fully informed and capable of acting on that information for their own reasons and intents. That would mean waiting until 21, or more likely 24+ for surgery like a permanent adrenal mod.

I guess my point is that your constant indignance over the audacity of others to seek to halt modifications to their body is simply vapid

I think you have much more faith than I do in the ability of people (adults 24+) of knowing what they want done with their adrenals or even being able to locate their adrenal glands on an anatomic diagram. i once was at a small gathering of mostly Ph.D's and none of them could have guessed where their adrenal was located or what it was for or what affected its performance, etc. Biology was not their field. I can't remember just what common medical issue (especially with that particular demographic) came up in conversation and absolutely not one single person had the vaguest idea what it meant. I just put that in to make it clear that a LOT of people do not know very much about their bodies, anatomically or physiologically speaking, even in very gross terms, not fine details. I genuinely think that there should be mandatory adult education classes along the lines of:

Your Body: An Owner's Manual

so that people know and understand or have at least a vague idea of what their doctor is talking about or what a diuretic is, for example or an ACE inhibitor, or pancreas, etc. Seriously: people need to be informed patients.

Ideally, people would have some basic info throughout school, starting in elementary school and building throughout their education.

I won't even go into how many times I've drawn diagrams of female external genitalia with special emphasis on where a clitoris is.

I am `100% in favor of people who wish to make alterations to their bodies having a lot of discussions with their GP, specialists, such as endocrinologists, mental health experts, etc. and then...not necessarily getting what they want. Please note: Plastic surgeons often turn down patients who want something unreasonable or that could potentially harm them or that is serving as a proxy for whatever their real issue is. And more should do that. There's a lot of very bad plastic surgery out there.

I remember being a kid and feeling like i could not wait to grow up because then I'd have control over every aspect of my life. Hah. That said: I definitely prefer adulthood to childhood.

 

[lpetrich]

Anne Fausto-Sterling herself stated that she was being provocative by proposing those three intersex conditions as additional genders. Those three conditions may be called mixed-gender states, and trans people may also be called mixed gender, with their somatic and psychological genders being mismatched.

 

[Jarhyn]

knowing what they want done with their adrenals or even being able to locate their adrenal glands on an anatomic diagram

People generally know the effects of the adrenal gland and the side effects of it firing.

For some people, those side effects are life threatening, and problematic, so of course they need to be given some personal oversight on whether they actually allow that to take place at any given moment.

This is not predicated on the ability to point out the gland or even distinctly communicate their needs.

It is up to the medical and mental health professionals to help people understand their goals and the paths to them, and what obstacles exist on that path.

It is a bad argument against giving people leverage over the systems which create their experiences, especially when the experiences their systems create include "abruptly dying".

 

[Toni]

knowing what they want done with their adrenals or even being able to locate their adrenal glands on an anatomic diagram

People generally know the effects of the adrenal gland and the side effects of it firing.

For some people, those side effects are life threatening, and problematic, so of course they need to be given some personal oversight on whether they actually allow that to take place at any given moment.

This is not predicated on the ability to point out the gland or even distinctly communicate their needs.

It is up to the medical and mental health professionals to help people understand their goals and the paths to them, and what obstacles exist on that path.

It is a bad argument against giving people leverage over the systems which create their experiences, especially when the experiences their systems create include "abruptly dying".

I don't mean this unkindly but I don't think you know what your adrenal glands so or are only focused on one function. You actually cannot survive without at least one functional adrenal gland without taking supplements for the rest of your life.

Adrenal glands secrete hormones essential for metabolism, regulation of blood pressure, and sodium and glucose homeostasis (stability). Hypo- or hypersecretion of these hormones is life threatening.

Your medulla is the inner part of your adrenal gland, and it releases the hormones adrenaline (epinephrine) and noradrenaline (norepinephrine). These hormones help control your blood pressure, heart rate, sweating and other activities that are also regulated by your sympathetic nervous system. The cortex is the outer part of your adrenal gland, and it releases corticosteroid and mineralocorticoid hormones. The adrenal cortex also stimulates the production of small amounts of male sex steroid hormones (androgenic steroids).

Adrenal glands interact with your hypothalamus, pituitary gland, kidneys and sympathetic nervous system.

 

[Jarhyn]

You actually cannot survive without at least one functional adrenal gland without taking supplements for the rest of your life

And some folks need to live like that, because their adrenal glands would not "behave" as they wish. Some such people are undoubtedly children.

At some point there will be technology that allows a new way to regulate that system, and for such people to help it behave. Having the ability to provide a direct handle, and denying this direct handle, in the immediate and current knowledge that a direct handle has distinct and well understood survival benefits and costs, creates an ethical obligation for this to be on offer in acceptance of costs.

There can be safety limitations imposed which require some conscious effort to overcome, but even then, there is the reality of the situation where someone needs a lot of adrenaline at once, knows it will kill them, and has every reason and right to do it anyway.

The only reason that we don't already have that, usually, is because many people would make decisions that save their loved ones rather than themselves, and this is not necessarily or directly contributive to direct genetic descendants being produced. It also provides a mechanism that allows for immediate, violent self-destruction, which assumes the former, but with the whole "violently enabled and already past acceptance of immediate death" aspect.

I think I'm some respects knowing that any given adult human could physically rip any other adult human practically in half at the expense of their own life, it would contribute a good deal more polity in society.

But you're the one that got us on a derail about whether or not other hormones deserve personal oversight.

Frankly, that is all unexplored territory legally speaking. We can theorycraft on how we expect it to turn out, but the reality is that it would be an unmitigated shit show with a whole new target for the ire of those who cleave to the naturalistic fallacy: the "sin" of having "mods" or whatever name ends up being attached.

The name is unimportant.

With testosterone and estrogen, we know the effects of exposure. We have seen those effects, and the effects of having control over them, and those effects are broadly positive.

 

[Toni]

You actually cannot survive without at least one functional adrenal gland without taking supplements for the rest of your life

And some folks need to live like that, because their adrenal glands would not "behave" as they wish. Some such people are undoubtedly children.

At some point there will be technology that allows a new way to regulate that system, and for such people to help it behave. Having the ability to provide a direct handle, and denying this direct handle, in the immediate and current knowledge that a direct handle has distinct and well understood survival benefits and costs, creates an ethical obligation for this to be on offer in acceptance of costs.

There can be safety limitations imposed which require some conscious effort to overcome, but even then, there is the reality of the situation where someone needs a lot of adrenaline at once, knows it will kill them, and has every reason and right to do it anyway.

The only reason that we don't already have that, usually, is because many people would make decisions that save their loved ones rather than themselves, and this is not necessarily or directly contributive to direct genetic descendants being produced. It also provides a mechanism that allows for immediate, violent self-destruction, which assumes the former, but with the whole "violently enabled and already past acceptance of immediate death" aspect.

I think I'm some respects knowing that any given adult human could physically rip any other adult human practically in half at the expense of their own life, it would contribute a good deal more polity in society.

But you're the one that got us on a derail about whether or not other hormones deserve personal oversight.

Frankly, that is all unexplored territory legally speaking. We can theorycraft on how we expect it to turn out, but the reality is that it would be an unmitigated shit show with a whole new target for the ire of those who cleave to the naturalistic fallacy: the "sin" of having "mods" or whatever name ends up being attached.

The name is unimportant.

With testosterone and estrogen, we know the effects of exposure. We have seen those effects, and the effects of having control over them, and those effects are broadly positive.

I disagree entirely. And if we want to suppress androgens today, there are andrigen blockers.

 

[Jarhyn]

You actually cannot survive without at least one functional adrenal gland without taking supplements for the rest of your life

And some folks need to live like that, because their adrenal glands would not "behave" as they wish. Some such people are undoubtedly children.

At some point there will be technology that allows a new way to regulate that system, and for such people to help it behave. Having the ability to provide a direct handle, and denying this direct handle, in the immediate and current knowledge that a direct handle has distinct and well understood survival benefits and costs, creates an ethical obligation for this to be on offer in acceptance of costs.

There can be safety limitations imposed which require some conscious effort to overcome, but even then, there is the reality of the situation where someone needs a lot of adrenaline at once, knows it will kill them, and has every reason and right to do it anyway.

The only reason that we don't already have that, usually, is because many people would make decisions that save their loved ones rather than themselves, and this is not necessarily or directly contributive to direct genetic descendants being produced. It also provides a mechanism that allows for immediate, violent self-destruction, which assumes the former, but with the whole "violently enabled and already past acceptance of immediate death" aspect.

I think I'm some respects knowing that any given adult human could physically rip any other adult human practically in half at the expense of their own life, it would contribute a good deal more polity in society.

But you're the one that got us on a derail about whether or not other hormones deserve personal oversight.

Frankly, that is all unexplored territory legally speaking. We can theorycraft on how we expect it to turn out, but the reality is that it would be an unmitigated shit show with a whole new target for the ire of those who cleave to the naturalistic fallacy: the "sin" of having "mods" or whatever name ends up being attached.

The name is unimportant.

With testosterone and estrogen, we know the effects of exposure. We have seen those effects, and the effects of having control over them, and those effects are broadly positive.

I disagree entirely. And if we want to suppress androgens today, there are andrigen blockers.

So you disagree with what? The existence of people who need to get their adrenal glands removed because they create a dangerous physiological condition? How else beyond being born without adrenal glands would we know that supplementation is required in their absence?

How do you disagree with the position that those who are forced to lack them through the dangers they create for the individual or the sheer lack as an accident of physiology, that they deserve to be able to install such that will not kill them?

And at what point after that can you justify depriving them of a handle onto some control over that?

And from there, once we have offered it to some, where do you justify offering it ONLY to those few?

The fact is, human beings DO normally have some limited control, and some so much control that they could probably kill themselves that way. You would be taking the philosophical position that them being born without is justification for them forever being deprived of available human experience, even should they seek it.

Flat disagreement doesn't create any philosophical leverage for rejection of any of this.

As to androgens, the fact is that sometimes people want to choose how they will be medicated.

Personally, I would rather be able to go anywhere in the world, any time in the future or even the past, though the latter is the stuff of mere stories, and not need a medication that I probably can't get there to feel at least some semblance of "normal".

I would rather let my bones rot for a few years while I explore the world, than for those years be forced to go back to the way I was.

Do you actually understand how much anxiety is produced by the constant worry that something that makes your body and mind tolerable to live in will suddenly be unavailable because of a change in "where" or "when"?

And "when" for me could easily be "tomorrow", because it certainly was on some particular "yesterday".

At that point, the only way to force me back onto androgens would be to tie me down and inject me forcibly with them.

They can use whatever sophistry at that point to deny I am a "man" or to deny I am a "woman" but I never asked to be either of those things, not really. I will undeniably be what I sought to be: a eunuch.

It's the sort of decision that has to be made on a cost basis.

 

[Toni]

You actually cannot survive without at least one functional adrenal gland without taking supplements for the rest of your life

And some folks need to live like that, because their adrenal glands would not "behave" as they wish. Some such people are undoubtedly children.

At some point there will be technology that allows a new way to regulate that system, and for such people to help it behave. Having the ability to provide a direct handle, and denying this direct handle, in the immediate and current knowledge that a direct handle has distinct and well understood survival benefits and costs, creates an ethical obligation for this to be on offer in acceptance of costs.

There can be safety limitations imposed which require some conscious effort to overcome, but even then, there is the reality of the situation where someone needs a lot of adrenaline at once, knows it will kill them, and has every reason and right to do it anyway.

The only reason that we don't already have that, usually, is because many people would make decisions that save their loved ones rather than themselves, and this is not necessarily or directly contributive to direct genetic descendants being produced. It also provides a mechanism that allows for immediate, violent self-destruction, which assumes the former, but with the whole "violently enabled and already past acceptance of immediate death" aspect.

I think I'm some respects knowing that any given adult human could physically rip any other adult human practically in half at the expense of their own life, it would contribute a good deal more polity in society.

But you're the one that got us on a derail about whether or not other hormones deserve personal oversight.

Frankly, that is all unexplored territory legally speaking. We can theorycraft on how we expect it to turn out, but the reality is that it would be an unmitigated shit show with a whole new target for the ire of those who cleave to the naturalistic fallacy: the "sin" of having "mods" or whatever name ends up being attached.

The name is unimportant.

With testosterone and estrogen, we know the effects of exposure. We have seen those effects, and the effects of having control over them, and those effects are broadly positive.

I disagree entirely. And if we want to suppress androgens today, there are andrigen blockers.

So you disagree with what? The existence of people who need to get their adrenal glands removed because they create a dangerous physiological condition? How else beyond being born without adrenal glands would we know that supplementation is required in their absence?

How do you disagree with the position that those who are forced to lack them through the dangers they create for the individual or the sheer lack as an accident of physiology, that they deserve to be able to install such that will not kill them?

And at what point after that can you justify depriving them of a handle onto some control over that?

And from there, once we have offered it to some, where do you justify offering it ONLY to those few?

The fact is, human beings DO normally have some limited control, and some so much control that they could probably kill themselves that way. You would be taking the philosophical position that them being born without is justification for them forever being deprived of available human experience, even should they seek it.

Flat disagreement doesn't create any philosophical leverage for rejection of any of this.

As to androgens, the fact is that sometimes people want to choose how they will be medicated.

Personally, I would rather be able to go anywhere in the world, any time in the future or even the past, though the latter is the stuff of mere stories, and not need a medication that I probably can't get there to feel at least some semblance of "normal".

I would rather let my bones rot for a few years while I explore the world, than for those years be forced to go back to the way I was.

Do you actually understand how much anxiety is produced by the constant worry that something that makes your body and mind tolerable to live in will suddenly be unavailable because of a change in "where" or "when"?

And "when" for me could easily be "tomorrow", because it certainly was on some particular "yesterday".

At that point, the only way to force me back onto androgens would be to tie me down and inject me forcibly with them.

They can use whatever sophistry at that point to deny I am a "man" or to deny I am a "woman" but I never asked to be either of those things, not really. I will undeniably be what I sought to be: a eunuch.

It's the sort of decision that has to be made on a cost basis.

Sometimes, rarely, people DO need to have one or both adrenals removed. They MUST take hormone replacements in order to survive.

There is something called science and something called medical science that has discovered a class of chemicals produced by the human ( or any mammalian) body that act as messengers that help the various organs and systems in the body communicate and work together to allow life.

 

[Jarhyn]

You actually cannot survive without at least one functional adrenal gland without taking supplements for the rest of your life

And some folks need to live like that, because their adrenal glands would not "behave" as they wish. Some such people are undoubtedly children.

At some point there will be technology that allows a new way to regulate that system, and for such people to help it behave. Having the ability to provide a direct handle, and denying this direct handle, in the immediate and current knowledge that a direct handle has distinct and well understood survival benefits and costs, creates an ethical obligation for this to be on offer in acceptance of costs.

There can be safety limitations imposed which require some conscious effort to overcome, but even then, there is the reality of the situation where someone needs a lot of adrenaline at once, knows it will kill them, and has every reason and right to do it anyway.

The only reason that we don't already have that, usually, is because many people would make decisions that save their loved ones rather than themselves, and this is not necessarily or directly contributive to direct genetic descendants being produced. It also provides a mechanism that allows for immediate, violent self-destruction, which assumes the former, but with the whole "violently enabled and already past acceptance of immediate death" aspect.

I think I'm some respects knowing that any given adult human could physically rip any other adult human practically in half at the expense of their own life, it would contribute a good deal more polity in society.

But you're the one that got us on a derail about whether or not other hormones deserve personal oversight.

Frankly, that is all unexplored territory legally speaking. We can theorycraft on how we expect it to turn out, but the reality is that it would be an unmitigated shit show with a whole new target for the ire of those who cleave to the naturalistic fallacy: the "sin" of having "mods" or whatever name ends up being attached.

The name is unimportant.

With testosterone and estrogen, we know the effects of exposure. We have seen those effects, and the effects of having control over them, and those effects are broadly positive.

I disagree entirely. And if we want to suppress androgens today, there are andrigen blockers.

So you disagree with what? The existence of people who need to get their adrenal glands removed because they create a dangerous physiological condition? How else beyond being born without adrenal glands would we know that supplementation is required in their absence?

How do you disagree with the position that those who are forced to lack them through the dangers they create for the individual or the sheer lack as an accident of physiology, that they deserve to be able to install such that will not kill them?

And at what point after that can you justify depriving them of a handle onto some control over that?

And from there, once we have offered it to some, where do you justify offering it ONLY to those few?

The fact is, human beings DO normally have some limited control, and some so much control that they could probably kill themselves that way. You would be taking the philosophical position that them being born without is justification for them forever being deprived of available human experience, even should they seek it.

Flat disagreement doesn't create any philosophical leverage for rejection of any of this.

As to androgens, the fact is that sometimes people want to choose how they will be medicated.

Personally, I would rather be able to go anywhere in the world, any time in the future or even the past, though the latter is the stuff of mere stories, and not need a medication that I probably can't get there to feel at least some semblance of "normal".

I would rather let my bones rot for a few years while I explore the world, than for those years be forced to go back to the way I was.

Do you actually understand how much anxiety is produced by the constant worry that something that makes your body and mind tolerable to live in will suddenly be unavailable because of a change in "where" or "when"?

And "when" for me could easily be "tomorrow", because it certainly was on some particular "yesterday".

At that point, the only way to force me back onto androgens would be to tie me down and inject me forcibly with them.

They can use whatever sophistry at that point to deny I am a "man" or to deny I am a "woman" but I never asked to be either of those things, not really. I will undeniably be what I sought to be: a eunuch.

It's the sort of decision that has to be made on a cost basis.

Sometimes, rarely, people DO need to have one or both adrenals removed. They MUST take hormone replacements in order to survive.

There is something called science and something called medical science that has discovered a class of chemicals produced by the human ( or any mammalian) body that act as messengers that help the various organs and systems in the body communicate and work together to allow life.

Yes, these chemicals exist, and my point is derived from the existence of such people.

As to trans people, enough have been born or made of their own hand happily a person without hormones, and enough people have been born with hormones both of sorts they like to be under the effects of, and who do not like the effects, even within hormone groups.

You have offered nothing of any sort of philosophical leverage to deny them a hand on that handle.

Indeed you have described some rough and primitive ways we can put a hand there on purpose, but no argument against creating the handle with which to choose how much and whether at all.

I'm not saying to build a system with no governor, but you are using this as an argument to build a system with no accessible throttle at all. If there is a philosophical connection to your demands people have less direct control over their bodies, I have yet to see it, and you have yet to post it.

 

[Bomb#20]

In other news, five years after coronary bypass operations the majority of patients feel it helped them, according to poll results. Patients who died before then were not included in the survey.[/s]

Do you have a relevant point...? ...

The goal of the study appears not to have been to give accurate information about their probable future satisfaction level to people currently considering transitioning.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Glad you appreciate it. So in the spirit of giving you what you want, I'll point out the obvious again: a Washington Post headline reading "Most trans adults say transitioning made them more satisfied with their lives" is going to be interpreted by gender dysphoric teenagers as meaning that scientists who have studied transitioning have found evidence that if those teenagers themselves transition it will probably make them happier. Few of them will go on to carefully read the study and analyze its methodology and pick up on the critical point that whether people consider themselves trans can change over time.

WaPo choosing to report on their study using such a misleading headline was irresponsible. (And that's giving WaPo the benefit of the doubt -- they may have deliberately intended GD teenagers to take the study to mean transitioning will probably make them happier. Odds are they believe that's what their study shows. I doubt WaPo editors would be competent to do peer-reviews at a science journal.)

 

[Toni]

You actually cannot survive without at least one functional adrenal gland without taking supplements for the rest of your life

And some folks need to live like that, because their adrenal glands would not "behave" as they wish. Some such people are undoubtedly children.

At some point there will be technology that allows a new way to regulate that system, and for such people to help it behave. Having the ability to provide a direct handle, and denying this direct handle, in the immediate and current knowledge that a direct handle has distinct and well understood survival benefits and costs, creates an ethical obligation for this to be on offer in acceptance of costs.

There can be safety limitations imposed which require some conscious effort to overcome, but even then, there is the reality of the situation where someone needs a lot of adrenaline at once, knows it will kill them, and has every reason and right to do it anyway.

The only reason that we don't already have that, usually, is because many people would make decisions that save their loved ones rather than themselves, and this is not necessarily or directly contributive to direct genetic descendants being produced. It also provides a mechanism that allows for immediate, violent self-destruction, which assumes the former, but with the whole "violently enabled and already past acceptance of immediate death" aspect.

I think I'm some respects knowing that any given adult human could physically rip any other adult human practically in half at the expense of their own life, it would contribute a good deal more polity in society.

But you're the one that got us on a derail about whether or not other hormones deserve personal oversight.

Frankly, that is all unexplored territory legally speaking. We can theorycraft on how we expect it to turn out, but the reality is that it would be an unmitigated shit show with a whole new target for the ire of those who cleave to the naturalistic fallacy: the "sin" of having "mods" or whatever name ends up being attached.

The name is unimportant.

With testosterone and estrogen, we know the effects of exposure. We have seen those effects, and the effects of having control over them, and those effects are broadly positive.

I disagree entirely. And if we want to suppress androgens today, there are andrigen blockers.

So you disagree with what? The existence of people who need to get their adrenal glands removed because they create a dangerous physiological condition? How else beyond being born without adrenal glands would we know that supplementation is required in their absence?

How do you disagree with the position that those who are forced to lack them through the dangers they create for the individual or the sheer lack as an accident of physiology, that they deserve to be able to install such that will not kill them?

And at what point after that can you justify depriving them of a handle onto some control over that?

And from there, once we have offered it to some, where do you justify offering it ONLY to those few?

The fact is, human beings DO normally have some limited control, and some so much control that they could probably kill themselves that way. You would be taking the philosophical position that them being born without is justification for them forever being deprived of available human experience, even should they seek it.

Flat disagreement doesn't create any philosophical leverage for rejection of any of this.

As to androgens, the fact is that sometimes people want to choose how they will be medicated.

Personally, I would rather be able to go anywhere in the world, any time in the future or even the past, though the latter is the stuff of mere stories, and not need a medication that I probably can't get there to feel at least some semblance of "normal".

I would rather let my bones rot for a few years while I explore the world, than for those years be forced to go back to the way I was.

Do you actually understand how much anxiety is produced by the constant worry that something that makes your body and mind tolerable to live in will suddenly be unavailable because of a change in "where" or "when"?

And "when" for me could easily be "tomorrow", because it certainly was on some particular "yesterday".

At that point, the only way to force me back onto androgens would be to tie me down and inject me forcibly with them.

They can use whatever sophistry at that point to deny I am a "man" or to deny I am a "woman" but I never asked to be either of those things, not really. I will undeniably be what I sought to be: a eunuch.

It's the sort of decision that has to be made on a cost basis.

Sometimes, rarely, people DO need to have one or both adrenals removed. They MUST take hormone replacements in order to survive.

There is something called science and something called medical science that has discovered a class of chemicals produced by the human ( or any mammalian) body that act as messengers that help the various organs and systems in the body communicate and work together to allow life.

Yes, these chemicals exist, and my point is derived from the existence of such people.

As to trans people, enough have been born or made of their own hand happily a person without hormones, and enough people have been born with hormones both of sorts they like to be under the effects of, and who do not like the effects, even within hormone groups.

You have offered nothing of any sort of philosophical leverage to deny them a hand on that handle.

Indeed you have described some rough and primitive ways we can put a hand there on purpose, but no argument against creating the handle with which to choose how much and whether at all.

I'm not saying to build a system with no governor, but you are using this as an argument to build a system with no accessible throttle at all. If there is a philosophical connection to your demands people have less direct control over their bodies, I have yet to see it, and you have yet to post it.

There is nothing more rough and primitive than simply cutting out what you do not like or wish to be 'burdened' by.
Androgen blockers are as effective as surgical removal of adrenals without the serious negative health consequences which would need to be mitigated by more drugs.

I am absolutely not suggesting that a system needs to be made without a throttle. You don't like the throttle in place: medical intervention that preserves live and health to the extent possible.

 

[Jarhyn]

You actually cannot survive without at least one functional adrenal gland without taking supplements for the rest of your life

And some folks need to live like that, because their adrenal glands would not "behave" as they wish. Some such people are undoubtedly children.

At some point there will be technology that allows a new way to regulate that system, and for such people to help it behave. Having the ability to provide a direct handle, and denying this direct handle, in the immediate and current knowledge that a direct handle has distinct and well understood survival benefits and costs, creates an ethical obligation for this to be on offer in acceptance of costs.

There can be safety limitations imposed which require some conscious effort to overcome, but even then, there is the reality of the situation where someone needs a lot of adrenaline at once, knows it will kill them, and has every reason and right to do it anyway.

The only reason that we don't already have that, usually, is because many people would make decisions that save their loved ones rather than themselves, and this is not necessarily or directly contributive to direct genetic descendants being produced. It also provides a mechanism that allows for immediate, violent self-destruction, which assumes the former, but with the whole "violently enabled and already past acceptance of immediate death" aspect.

I think I'm some respects knowing that any given adult human could physically rip any other adult human practically in half at the expense of their own life, it would contribute a good deal more polity in society.

But you're the one that got us on a derail about whether or not other hormones deserve personal oversight.

Frankly, that is all unexplored territory legally speaking. We can theorycraft on how we expect it to turn out, but the reality is that it would be an unmitigated shit show with a whole new target for the ire of those who cleave to the naturalistic fallacy: the "sin" of having "mods" or whatever name ends up being attached.

The name is unimportant.

With testosterone and estrogen, we know the effects of exposure. We have seen those effects, and the effects of having control over them, and those effects are broadly positive.

I disagree entirely. And if we want to suppress androgens today, there are andrigen blockers.

So you disagree with what? The existence of people who need to get their adrenal glands removed because they create a dangerous physiological condition? How else beyond being born without adrenal glands would we know that supplementation is required in their absence?

How do you disagree with the position that those who are forced to lack them through the dangers they create for the individual or the sheer lack as an accident of physiology, that they deserve to be able to install such that will not kill them?

And at what point after that can you justify depriving them of a handle onto some control over that?

And from there, once we have offered it to some, where do you justify offering it ONLY to those few?

The fact is, human beings DO normally have some limited control, and some so much control that they could probably kill themselves that way. You would be taking the philosophical position that them being born without is justification for them forever being deprived of available human experience, even should they seek it.

Flat disagreement doesn't create any philosophical leverage for rejection of any of this.

As to androgens, the fact is that sometimes people want to choose how they will be medicated.

Personally, I would rather be able to go anywhere in the world, any time in the future or even the past, though the latter is the stuff of mere stories, and not need a medication that I probably can't get there to feel at least some semblance of "normal".

I would rather let my bones rot for a few years while I explore the world, than for those years be forced to go back to the way I was.

Do you actually understand how much anxiety is produced by the constant worry that something that makes your body and mind tolerable to live in will suddenly be unavailable because of a change in "where" or "when"?

And "when" for me could easily be "tomorrow", because it certainly was on some particular "yesterday".

At that point, the only way to force me back onto androgens would be to tie me down and inject me forcibly with them.

They can use whatever sophistry at that point to deny I am a "man" or to deny I am a "woman" but I never asked to be either of those things, not really. I will undeniably be what I sought to be: a eunuch.

It's the sort of decision that has to be made on a cost basis.

Sometimes, rarely, people DO need to have one or both adrenals removed. They MUST take hormone replacements in order to survive.

There is something called science and something called medical science that has discovered a class of chemicals produced by the human ( or any mammalian) body that act as messengers that help the various organs and systems in the body communicate and work together to allow life.

Yes, these chemicals exist, and my point is derived from the existence of such people.

As to trans people, enough have been born or made of their own hand happily a person without hormones, and enough people have been born with hormones both of sorts they like to be under the effects of, and who do not like the effects, even within hormone groups.

You have offered nothing of any sort of philosophical leverage to deny them a hand on that handle.

Indeed you have described some rough and primitive ways we can put a hand there on purpose, but no argument against creating the handle with which to choose how much and whether at all.

I'm not saying to build a system with no governor, but you are using this as an argument to build a system with no accessible throttle at all. If there is a philosophical connection to your demands people have less direct control over their bodies, I have yet to see it, and you have yet to post it.

There is nothing more rough and primitive than simply cutting out what you do not like or wish to be 'burdened' by.
Androgen blockers are as effective as surgical removal of adrenals without the serious negative health consequences which would need to be mitigated by more drugs.

I am absolutely not suggesting that a system needs to be made without a throttle. You don't like the throttle in place: medical intervention that preserves live and health to the extent possible.

There is though: accepting to be burdened by it.

I'm not even suggesting removals of adrenal glands. That's YOUR suggestion. You brought that up. My thought was to instead install systems which allow individuals to throttle their own adrenaline directly, something that I'm certain is already being worked on and for good reason.

I'm suggesting removals of gonads, for those who ask for that, because some people want it, and you have no right to tell them no.

That does not threaten life or health.

It is absolutely a choice of the person because some people would like to have power over what it is they have to treat when and how, of two conditions.

Clearly, I think it's reasonable to want to choose what their treatment treats, especially in situations like gonadal effects when either state is survivable but one state is more miserable.

 

[Toni]

You actually cannot survive without at least one functional adrenal gland without taking supplements for the rest of your life

And some folks need to live like that, because their adrenal glands would not "behave" as they wish. Some such people are undoubtedly children.

At some point there will be technology that allows a new way to regulate that system, and for such people to help it behave. Having the ability to provide a direct handle, and denying this direct handle, in the immediate and current knowledge that a direct handle has distinct and well understood survival benefits and costs, creates an ethical obligation for this to be on offer in acceptance of costs.

There can be safety limitations imposed which require some conscious effort to overcome, but even then, there is the reality of the situation where someone needs a lot of adrenaline at once, knows it will kill them, and has every reason and right to do it anyway.

The only reason that we don't already have that, usually, is because many people would make decisions that save their loved ones rather than themselves, and this is not necessarily or directly contributive to direct genetic descendants being produced. It also provides a mechanism that allows for immediate, violent self-destruction, which assumes the former, but with the whole "violently enabled and already past acceptance of immediate death" aspect.

I think I'm some respects knowing that any given adult human could physically rip any other adult human practically in half at the expense of their own life, it would contribute a good deal more polity in society.

But you're the one that got us on a derail about whether or not other hormones deserve personal oversight.

Frankly, that is all unexplored territory legally speaking. We can theorycraft on how we expect it to turn out, but the reality is that it would be an unmitigated shit show with a whole new target for the ire of those who cleave to the naturalistic fallacy: the "sin" of having "mods" or whatever name ends up being attached.

The name is unimportant.

With testosterone and estrogen, we know the effects of exposure. We have seen those effects, and the effects of having control over them, and those effects are broadly positive.

I disagree entirely. And if we want to suppress androgens today, there are andrigen blockers.

So you disagree with what? The existence of people who need to get their adrenal glands removed because they create a dangerous physiological condition? How else beyond being born without adrenal glands would we know that supplementation is required in their absence?

How do you disagree with the position that those who are forced to lack them through the dangers they create for the individual or the sheer lack as an accident of physiology, that they deserve to be able to install such that will not kill them?

And at what point after that can you justify depriving them of a handle onto some control over that?

And from there, once we have offered it to some, where do you justify offering it ONLY to those few?

The fact is, human beings DO normally have some limited control, and some so much control that they could probably kill themselves that way. You would be taking the philosophical position that them being born without is justification for them forever being deprived of available human experience, even should they seek it.

Flat disagreement doesn't create any philosophical leverage for rejection of any of this.

As to androgens, the fact is that sometimes people want to choose how they will be medicated.

Personally, I would rather be able to go anywhere in the world, any time in the future or even the past, though the latter is the stuff of mere stories, and not need a medication that I probably can't get there to feel at least some semblance of "normal".

I would rather let my bones rot for a few years while I explore the world, than for those years be forced to go back to the way I was.

Do you actually understand how much anxiety is produced by the constant worry that something that makes your body and mind tolerable to live in will suddenly be unavailable because of a change in "where" or "when"?

And "when" for me could easily be "tomorrow", because it certainly was on some particular "yesterday".

At that point, the only way to force me back onto androgens would be to tie me down and inject me forcibly with them.

They can use whatever sophistry at that point to deny I am a "man" or to deny I am a "woman" but I never asked to be either of those things, not really. I will undeniably be what I sought to be: a eunuch.

It's the sort of decision that has to be made on a cost basis.

Sometimes, rarely, people DO need to have one or both adrenals removed. They MUST take hormone replacements in order to survive.

There is something called science and something called medical science that has discovered a class of chemicals produced by the human ( or any mammalian) body that act as messengers that help the various organs and systems in the body communicate and work together to allow life.

Yes, these chemicals exist, and my point is derived from the existence of such people.

As to trans people, enough have been born or made of their own hand happily a person without hormones, and enough people have been born with hormones both of sorts they like to be under the effects of, and who do not like the effects, even within hormone groups.

You have offered nothing of any sort of philosophical leverage to deny them a hand on that handle.

Indeed you have described some rough and primitive ways we can put a hand there on purpose, but no argument against creating the handle with which to choose how much and whether at all.

I'm not saying to build a system with no governor, but you are using this as an argument to build a system with no accessible throttle at all. If there is a philosophical connection to your demands people have less direct control over their bodies, I have yet to see it, and you have yet to post it.

There is nothing more rough and primitive than simply cutting out what you do not like or wish to be 'burdened' by.
Androgen blockers are as effective as surgical removal of adrenals without the serious negative health consequences which would need to be mitigated by more drugs.

I am absolutely not suggesting that a system needs to be made without a throttle. You don't like the throttle in place: medical intervention that preserves live and health to the extent possible.

There is though: accepting to be burdened by it.

I'm not even suggesting removals of adrenal glands. That's YOUR suggestion. You brought that up. My thought was to instead install systems which allow individuals to throttle their own adrenaline directly, something that I'm certain is already being worked on and for good reason.

I'm suggesting removals of gonads, for those who ask for that, because some people want it, and you have no right to tell them no.

That does not threaten life or health.

It is absolutely a choice of the person because some people would like to have power over what it is they have to treat when and how, of two conditions.

Clearly, I think it's reasonable to want to choose what their treatment treats, especially in situations like gonadal effects when either state is survivable but one state is more miserable.

Adrenal gland removal absolutely DOES threaten life. One cannot live without one's adrenal glands without additional medical treatment/intervention. Those treatments come with risks.

One cannot ask nor expect a surgeon to agree to remove a perfectly healthy organ or body part upon request. It violates the basic tenets of their profession.

I seriously doubt that it is 'being worked on' to somehow give individuals control over what their adrenal glands secret, when and how much and how often. It is difficult enough to convince someone to finish taking their antibiotics. Failing to follow prescribed protocol regarding hormones secreted by adrenals will have very deadly consequences.

 

[Jarhyn]

You actually cannot survive without at least one functional adrenal gland without taking supplements for the rest of your life

And some folks need to live like that, because their adrenal glands would not "behave" as they wish. Some such people are undoubtedly children.

At some point there will be technology that allows a new way to regulate that system, and for such people to help it behave. Having the ability to provide a direct handle, and denying this direct handle, in the immediate and current knowledge that a direct handle has distinct and well understood survival benefits and costs, creates an ethical obligation for this to be on offer in acceptance of costs.

There can be safety limitations imposed which require some conscious effort to overcome, but even then, there is the reality of the situation where someone needs a lot of adrenaline at once, knows it will kill them, and has every reason and right to do it anyway.

The only reason that we don't already have that, usually, is because many people would make decisions that save their loved ones rather than themselves, and this is not necessarily or directly contributive to direct genetic descendants being produced. It also provides a mechanism that allows for immediate, violent self-destruction, which assumes the former, but with the whole "violently enabled and already past acceptance of immediate death" aspect.

I think I'm some respects knowing that any given adult human could physically rip any other adult human practically in half at the expense of their own life, it would contribute a good deal more polity in society.

But you're the one that got us on a derail about whether or not other hormones deserve personal oversight.

Frankly, that is all unexplored territory legally speaking. We can theorycraft on how we expect it to turn out, but the reality is that it would be an unmitigated shit show with a whole new target for the ire of those who cleave to the naturalistic fallacy: the "sin" of having "mods" or whatever name ends up being attached.

The name is unimportant.

With testosterone and estrogen, we know the effects of exposure. We have seen those effects, and the effects of having control over them, and those effects are broadly positive.

I disagree entirely. And if we want to suppress androgens today, there are andrigen blockers.

So you disagree with what? The existence of people who need to get their adrenal glands removed because they create a dangerous physiological condition? How else beyond being born without adrenal glands would we know that supplementation is required in their absence?

How do you disagree with the position that those who are forced to lack them through the dangers they create for the individual or the sheer lack as an accident of physiology, that they deserve to be able to install such that will not kill them?

And at what point after that can you justify depriving them of a handle onto some control over that?

And from there, once we have offered it to some, where do you justify offering it ONLY to those few?

The fact is, human beings DO normally have some limited control, and some so much control that they could probably kill themselves that way. You would be taking the philosophical position that them being born without is justification for them forever being deprived of available human experience, even should they seek it.

Flat disagreement doesn't create any philosophical leverage for rejection of any of this.

As to androgens, the fact is that sometimes people want to choose how they will be medicated.

Personally, I would rather be able to go anywhere in the world, any time in the future or even the past, though the latter is the stuff of mere stories, and not need a medication that I probably can't get there to feel at least some semblance of "normal".

I would rather let my bones rot for a few years while I explore the world, than for those years be forced to go back to the way I was.

Do you actually understand how much anxiety is produced by the constant worry that something that makes your body and mind tolerable to live in will suddenly be unavailable because of a change in "where" or "when"?

And "when" for me could easily be "tomorrow", because it certainly was on some particular "yesterday".

At that point, the only way to force me back onto androgens would be to tie me down and inject me forcibly with them.

They can use whatever sophistry at that point to deny I am a "man" or to deny I am a "woman" but I never asked to be either of those things, not really. I will undeniably be what I sought to be: a eunuch.

It's the sort of decision that has to be made on a cost basis.

Sometimes, rarely, people DO need to have one or both adrenals removed. They MUST take hormone replacements in order to survive.

There is something called science and something called medical science that has discovered a class of chemicals produced by the human ( or any mammalian) body that act as messengers that help the various organs and systems in the body communicate and work together to allow life.

Yes, these chemicals exist, and my point is derived from the existence of such people.

As to trans people, enough have been born or made of their own hand happily a person without hormones, and enough people have been born with hormones both of sorts they like to be under the effects of, and who do not like the effects, even within hormone groups.

You have offered nothing of any sort of philosophical leverage to deny them a hand on that handle.

Indeed you have described some rough and primitive ways we can put a hand there on purpose, but no argument against creating the handle with which to choose how much and whether at all.

I'm not saying to build a system with no governor, but you are using this as an argument to build a system with no accessible throttle at all. If there is a philosophical connection to your demands people have less direct control over their bodies, I have yet to see it, and you have yet to post it.

There is nothing more rough and primitive than simply cutting out what you do not like or wish to be 'burdened' by.
Androgen blockers are as effective as surgical removal of adrenals without the serious negative health consequences which would need to be mitigated by more drugs.

I am absolutely not suggesting that a system needs to be made without a throttle. You don't like the throttle in place: medical intervention that preserves live and health to the extent possible.

There is though: accepting to be burdened by it.

I'm not even suggesting removals of adrenal glands. That's YOUR suggestion. You brought that up. My thought was to instead install systems which allow individuals to throttle their own adrenaline directly, something that I'm certain is already being worked on and for good reason.

I'm suggesting removals of gonads, for those who ask for that, because some people want it, and you have no right to tell them no.

That does not threaten life or health.

It is absolutely a choice of the person because some people would like to have power over what it is they have to treat when and how, of two conditions.

Clearly, I think it's reasonable to want to choose what their treatment treats, especially in situations like gonadal effects when either state is survivable but one state is more miserable.

Adrenal gland removal absolutely DOES threaten life.

I'm not even suggesting removals of adrenal glands. That's YOUR suggestion.

One cannot live without one's adrenal glands without additional medical treatment/intervention. Those treatments come with risks.

I'm not even suggesting removals of adrenal glands. That's YOUR suggestion.

One cannot ask nor expect a surgeon to agree to remove a perfectly healthy organ or body part upon request.

Yes one can absolutely ask. One cannot expect it, but thankfully there are probably at least a few folks who themselves wished that organ gone, and are happy to remove it for others knowing that they have the same goals.

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

This particular surgical intervention, the removal of the gonads, is very old, very well researched, and while nobody should be expected to perform "any" surgery outside their consent, asking for consent to remove an organ is reasonable when the effects of doing so are known and desired.

It violates the basic tenets of their profession.

No, it violates a particular view on medicine, one which is patently wrong and does not look to patient autonomy.

Re: https://www.econlib.org/pitfalls-with-the-hippocratic-oath-and-the-woke-oath/

I seriously doubt that it is 'being worked on' to somehow give individuals control over what their adrenal glands secret, when and how much and how often.

People are already working on implants that differentially regulate the brain to prevent symptoms around anxiety and adrenal response.

I would be willing to bet good money that the military is actively funding research in that field as well.

The ability to tightly and reliably control adrenal response, either preventing strong response or initiating it within a known bound, would be a very powerful military technology as well.

I see that being more of a limiting factor to individual access more than any other.

Failing to follow prescribed protocol regarding hormones secreted by adrenals will have very deadly consequences.

Hence "governor".

 

[Toni]

Military research into ways to control adrenal response to stressors is horrifying.

 

[Jarhyn]

Military research into ways to control adrenal response to stressors is horrifying.

We can at least agree on that. I'm fairly certain the technologies that would construct the application already exist and are past clinical trial. The only absent elements are specific connection to that part of the brain, and linkage of the "throttle" to a given, internally controllable... I'm unsure of a word for it. "Soma"?

The former is merely "stick it there, instead of here, with this electrochemical link rather than that other link, but how do I safely do the sticking in this new brain region?"

The latter is merely picking something that works for the user, which can be determined arbitrarily from a variety of mechanisms or triggers already in use in similar technology

I'd say we're going to hear about some ill-advised experiment exposed in that in the next 15-20 years that will have happened in only 5-10 years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

WaPo and Kaiser appear to be relying on a self-selected sample: they classify pollees as "trans" if the pollees classify themselves that way. So the adults who transitioned but found it did not make them more satisfied with their lives, and consequently detransitioned and no longer consider themselves "trans", are not included in the headline statistic. Relying on a self-selected sample is a classic source of bias in polling.

That's a group that's small enough they would have to poll an awful lot of people to get decent statistical power.

Trans people themselves are a group that's small enough they would have to poll an awful lot of people to get decent statistical power. They're estimated at about 0.5% of the population. To find 515 trans people by random sampling they'd need 100,000 people in their survey, which means, since typically 91% of the people pollsters call won't participate, they'd need to phone a million people. Anybody think SSRS did that? Which raises the question, how did they find 515 trans people to ask how satisfied they were? Probably either by publicizing the study and inviting trans people to contact them, or else by contacting gender care clinics and asking them to pass a message along to their patients. Either method would introduce even more biases into the results.

If their starting point is a list of trans people they have the number of calls is sane, but it obviously excludes those who detransition as they aren't in the sample.