Interesting piece, I'm not that persuaded by the arguments though.
If your main concern is teenagers being too superficial it seems weird to target transitioning rather than say... all of social media and Hollywood. Seems like the effect laws around hormone therapy have on teenagers attitude to vanity or body modifications are going to co…
Interesting piece, I'm not that persuaded by the arguments though.
If your main concern is teenagers being too superficial it seems weird to target transitioning rather than say... all of social media and Hollywood. Seems like the effect laws around hormone therapy have on teenagers attitude to vanity or body modifications are going to completely indetectible compared the effects of the general media.
The stuff about promoting reproduction for the sake of competition between societies seems like an incredibly long term concern. Also wouldn't the example around boys boosting their height help on that front anyway? Maybe you should support normalising hormone therapy so there'd be fewer incels (only half joking).
Actually, I might bite the bullet and go for height boosting for free for all boys unless there are strong side effects (there probably are). Would also help the mating market situation of tall girls. I generally support interventions that make the whole population healthier, smarter or prettier without bad side effects (take better nutrition, less lead poisoning, early screening for chromosomal diseases, etc). I don't think we should fight for keeping high diversity by preventing good things when these are available.
I think only shorter boys would really benefit. Being too tall is no good - it's associated with health problems. But the right for every boy to grow to 175 centimeters for example - could be a good idea.
>>If your main concern is teenagers being too superficial it seems weird to target transitioning rather than say... all of social media and Hollywood. Seems like the effect laws around hormone therapy have on teenagers attitude to vanity or body modifications are going to completely indetectible compared the effects of the general media.
Yes. And that's why I have spent my one and a half year on Substack complaining over mainstream, cis-gender superficiality. (An exaggeration. But I have written at least two posts about it: https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/primates-of-manhattan
Complaining over transgender stuff won't become a habit, because yes, it is not the most important problem.
>>The stuff about promoting reproduction for the sake of competition between societies seems like an incredibly long term concern.
Not incredibly. The Amish were a few thousand a hundred years ago. Now they are 250 000-ish. Also, Lebanon got a few problems because the French people who drew the map in the 1920s didn't predict that Muslims would be much more fertile than Christians. And how will Israel develop with the Orthodox Jews taking over? That is not a very long-term concern.
>>Maybe you should support normalising hormone therapy so there'd be fewer incels (only half joking).
I'm only half-joking too. I'm in no way sure that the current limits for growth hormone and testosterone to boys are optimal.
Interesting piece, I'm not that persuaded by the arguments though.
If your main concern is teenagers being too superficial it seems weird to target transitioning rather than say... all of social media and Hollywood. Seems like the effect laws around hormone therapy have on teenagers attitude to vanity or body modifications are going to completely indetectible compared the effects of the general media.
The stuff about promoting reproduction for the sake of competition between societies seems like an incredibly long term concern. Also wouldn't the example around boys boosting their height help on that front anyway? Maybe you should support normalising hormone therapy so there'd be fewer incels (only half joking).
Actually, I might bite the bullet and go for height boosting for free for all boys unless there are strong side effects (there probably are). Would also help the mating market situation of tall girls. I generally support interventions that make the whole population healthier, smarter or prettier without bad side effects (take better nutrition, less lead poisoning, early screening for chromosomal diseases, etc). I don't think we should fight for keeping high diversity by preventing good things when these are available.
I think only shorter boys would really benefit. Being too tall is no good - it's associated with health problems. But the right for every boy to grow to 175 centimeters for example - could be a good idea.
>>If your main concern is teenagers being too superficial it seems weird to target transitioning rather than say... all of social media and Hollywood. Seems like the effect laws around hormone therapy have on teenagers attitude to vanity or body modifications are going to completely indetectible compared the effects of the general media.
Yes. And that's why I have spent my one and a half year on Substack complaining over mainstream, cis-gender superficiality. (An exaggeration. But I have written at least two posts about it: https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/primates-of-manhattan
https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/a-rational-view-of-female-modesty)
Complaining over transgender stuff won't become a habit, because yes, it is not the most important problem.
>>The stuff about promoting reproduction for the sake of competition between societies seems like an incredibly long term concern.
Not incredibly. The Amish were a few thousand a hundred years ago. Now they are 250 000-ish. Also, Lebanon got a few problems because the French people who drew the map in the 1920s didn't predict that Muslims would be much more fertile than Christians. And how will Israel develop with the Orthodox Jews taking over? That is not a very long-term concern.
>>Maybe you should support normalising hormone therapy so there'd be fewer incels (only half joking).
I'm only half-joking too. I'm in no way sure that the current limits for growth hormone and testosterone to boys are optimal.