Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

Bamshalam wrote:

Except he didn't link those articles to prove there were more women than men in the workplace, or that equality was happening. He posted them to disprove Sutremaine's assertion that women were receiving a disproportionate number of pink slips due to the recession, which is exactly what those articles state.

So basically, you just wasted a lot of time typing all that out. Shame, it was a really nice strawman, too.

TheHermit wrote:

Except he didn't link those articles to prove there were more women than men in the workplace, or that equality was happening. He posted them to disprove Sutremaine's assertion that women were receiving a disproportionate number of pink slips due to the recession, which is exactly what those articles state.

My assertion was that in a situation where male and female employees had the same jobs, women would lose them disproportionately. I asked him what would happen to managers within a firm, and in response he posted links about the numbers of male jobs lost across the whole economy. He didn't even address what I was saying, let alone disprove it.

Actually, Bamshalam put it perfectly. If there are more men than women in a workplace, then OF COURSE more men will be laid off.

Knowing a number in economics is worthless without knowing its corresponding percentage - as it is vice versa. And it's more complicated even than that. Politicians twist these things in their favour all the time.

"We're gonna create 200,000 jobs!" says somebody. Great! How long will these jobs last? And why is this such a great deal when there are well over 14 MILLION unemployed in the USA?

See how numbers can be twisted if you don't know the full story?

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Actually, Bamshalam put it perfectly. If there are more men than women in a workplace, then OF COURSE more men will be laid off.

Knowing a number in economics is worthless without knowing its corresponding percentage - as it is vice versa. And it's more complicated even than that. Politicians twist these things in their favour all the time.

"We're gonna create 200,000 jobs!" says somebody. Great! How long will these jobs last? And why is this such a great deal when there are well over 14 MILLION unemployed in the USA?

See how numbers can be twisted if you don't know the full story?

Sometimes, Harley, you make sense. This is one of those times. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I know this is gonna sound dumb, but how did a thread about a topic which if anything is about anti-Gay/Gay Rights behaviour, get diverted into feminism?
I mean I know it a good chunk of the forums favourite topic of debate but come on people. When it starts overriding more topic relevant points then maybe it's time to reign it in a little.

It's directly related, mate. The whole thing is a product of how a woman "should" behave, as dictated by the patriarchy.

If by that you mean it's a line of thinking that 'Girls shouldn't want into another girls pants lets try and stop it happening' then yes you are right, but that is still more of an Anti Gay sentiment than an Anti-womens rights sentiment IMO.

It's very very wrong and dangerous and medically unsound, but not in the way you seem to be twisting it. This is an affront to gay rights first and anything else second.

Somath Cegem wrote:

If by that you mean it's a line of thinking that 'Girls shouldn't want into another girls pants lets try and stop it happening' then yes you are right, but that is still more of an Anti Gay sentiment than an Anti-womens rights sentiment IMO.

It's very very wrong and dangerous and medically unsound, but not in the way you seem to be twisting it. This is an affront to gay rights first and anything else second.

This is an affront to women. Gay women, straight women, women everyfuckingwhere. Did you not read the bit about "abnormal disinterest" in babies? "Interest" in men's things? This is saying "if you're not a woman in this very narrowly constructed idea of femininity and Appropriate Things For Women To Think and Do, there is something wrong with you."

And that's why we're discussing it.

aaaaaaaaaaaaall the way back from the OP, bolding mine:

Quote :

Gender-related behaviors, namely childhood play, peer association,
career and leisure time preferences in adolescence and adulthood,
maternalism, aggression, and sexual orientation become masculinized in
46,XX girls and women with 21OHD deficiency [CAH].

Not all of those things are associated with gay rights. The part where they're trying to control sexual orientation is only one part of the way in which they're trying to control female behaviour.

Where was your devotion to topic relevance when the FGM thread got derailed?

Sutremaine wrote:

Where was your devotion to topic relevance when the FGM thread got derailed?

Picking my battles. Getting on Mals case when she brings up Circumcision is like trying to stop a fright train with wet tissue, not really worth the effort.

Eh, Maybe I'm the one in the wrong here, simply because as well as this I can see the same happening with unborn boys not to far in the future, so yeah, when I read this, I don't see
"EXPERIMENTS ON GIRLS TO MAKE THEN PROPER LITTLE LADIES!!!" I see
"COMING SOON! GUARANTEE GRANKIDS BY MAKING SURE YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER AIN'T NO STINKIN POOF!!!"
I'm not seeing the gender here, I'm seeing at an attempt at behaviour alteration before a behaviour pattern can even develop and know that even if it's starting with girls it won't stop with them.
So yeah, fucking around with an unborn child chemically before it is born so it will be certain way is wrong no matter what, Gender is irrelevant with this issue.

I'm sorry if I'm missing something big and obvious, but please, for just 5 minutes try and see it from my point of view, where the fact the doctor picked girls to experiment on first is much less important than that this is being tried at all.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Sutremaine wrote:

Where was your devotion to topic relevance when the FGM thread got derailed?

Picking my battles. Getting on Mals case when she brings up Circumcision is like trying to stop a fright train with wet tissue, not really worth the effort.

Eh, Maybe I'm the one in the wrong here, simply because as well as this I can see the same happening with unborn boys not to far in the future, so yeah, when I read this, I don't see
"EXPERIMENTS ON GIRLS TO MAKE THEN PROPER LITTLE LADIES!!!" I see
"COMING SOON! GUARANTEE GRANKIDS BY MAKING SURE YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER AIN'T NO STINKIN POOF!!!"
I'm not seeing the gender here, I'm seeing at an attempt at behaviour alteration before a behaviour pattern can even develop and know that even if it's starting with girls it won't stop with them.
So yeah, fucking around with an unborn child chemically before it is born so it will be certain way is wrong no matter what, Gender is irrelevant with this issue.

I'm sorry if I'm missing something big and obvious, but please, for just 5 minutes try and see it from my point of view, where the fact the doctor picked girls to experiment on first is much less important than that this is being tried at all.

I do see what you mean. However, the dact of the matter is that its not just about being anti-gay. Its about reinforcing gender norms as well. These perceived gender abbherations are what they see as either a symptom of or a precursor to lesbianism; and the fact of the matter is that they believe that by making women what they were "supposed" to be, that will make them the proper sexuality. The affront to women and the affront to gays goes hand in hand here. All in all it's an affront to everyone, but in this particular instance, to women and lesbians.

It IS about gender, though, because society as a whole has this thing about equating homosexuality with the breaking of traditional gender roles.

I don't disagree that they'd do it to male babies too, but it would STILL be about gender performance. You'd see a list of things like, I dunno, lack of aggression, overemotionality, interest in domesticity -- you know, traits that a straight man could NEVER have, clearly.

That has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Eh, Maybe I'm the one in the wrong here, simply because as well as this I can see the same happening with unborn boys not to far in the future, so yeah, when I read this, I don't see "EXPERIMENTS ON GIRLS TO MAKE THEN PROPER LITTLE LADIES!!!" I see "COMING SOON! GUARANTEE GRANKIDS BY MAKING SURE YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER AIN'T NO STINKIN POOF!!!"

I'm not seeing the gender here, I'm seeing at an attempt at behaviour alteration before a behaviour pattern can even develop and know that even if it's starting with girls it won't stop with them.

So yeah, fucking around with an unborn child chemically before it is born so it will be certain way is wrong no matter what, Gender is irrelevant with this issue.

I agree... and since the women taking this drug don't even know the sex of their offspring, chances are about 50% of the children affected will be boys. So, children of both genders will be being fucked with in ways that aren't easy to forsee but seem grim just based on the fact that the drug they're being "treated" with causes brain cell death.

However, the fucked-up motivation for all this bullshit is to prevent lesbian or non-feminine *air-quote air-quote* behaviors, so it's blatantly anti-woman and anti-gay.

Personally I condemn it solely based on my belief in a person's fundamental right to personal integrity, and that these fetuses should not be being fucked around by a dangerous drug that will almost certainly permanently harm them. So it makes me cringe most on issues of personal bodily integrity because it's so fucking... creepy. Honestly that's the best descriptor I can come up with, it makes my fucking skin crawl.

But yes, the anti-gay, anti-woman issues are just the shit topping on the fucknut sundae.

Quote :

I'm sorry if I'm missing something big and obvious, but please, for just 5 minutes try and see it from my point of view, where the fact the doctor picked girls to experiment on first is much less important than that this is being tried at all.

The ironic thing is that she didn't, actually. She just hopes she's experimenting on girls. A lot of her test subjects could be boys.

Jesus. wrote:

I do see what you mean. However, the dact of the matter is that its not just about being anti-gay. Its about reinforcing gender norms as well. These perceived gender abbherations are what they see as either a symptom of or a precursor to lesbianism; and the fact of the matter is that they believe that by making women what they were "supposed" to be, that will make them the proper sexuality. The affront to women and the affront to gays goes hand in hand here. All in all it's an affront to everyone, but in this particular instance, to women and lesbians.

Also this.

I'm just morbidly wondering what the outcome of all this will be. I forsee something like a cross between John Money getting his reputation shot to hell by David Reimer's story, and the whole thing with thalidomide babies. I'm sure there's gonna be tons of lawsuits around 18-20 years from now... maybe not even that long.

Seriously, though, how did they get the moms and their partners/husbands to sign up for this? Was it "hey, take this drug and your kid won't be a lesbian or have a big clit!" or was it "hey, take this drug to prevent this rare condition that has serious health complications just please don't read the fine print about what it really does to you and your baby!" I know people can be gullible sometimes and just take whatever the doctor tries to shove down their throats, but what exactly was the sales pitch for this shit?

You're absolutely right, McGee, it's time we ladies put a sock in it. It's bad enough we shit up the rest of the board with our special interest issue, which is of no interest to real people. Talking about it in a thread about female foetuses being experimented on to ensure 'feminine' girls is really too much. Let's all talk about the men instead. You know, something that's of interest to real people.

Somath, this is a women's and a gay rights issue. These sorts of issues are often massively intertangled. *cough*patriarchy*cough*

Cyberwulf wrote:

You're absolutely right, McGee, it's time we ladies put a sock in it. It's bad enough we shit up the rest of the board with our special interest issue, which is of no interest to real people. Talking about it in a thread about female foetuses being experimented on to ensure 'feminine' girls is really too much. Let's all talk about the men instead. You know, something that's of interest to real people.

You're just being obnoxious for the sake of it, right?

I mean, you do sort of kind of maybe see where Somath is coming from? Or perhaps see why he would be confused, especially if you're not intimately familiar with the term 'gender'?

Right?

Right?

Motion to change name of forum to "Why, God, Why is there a Patriarchy?"

Jay, the vast preponderence of things this 'treatment' is supposed to 'fix' are all behaviours perceived as 'unfeminine'. That affects FtMs, lesbians, bi girls and straight girls. When someone chides us for talking about femininity and feminism, because he can't understand why we're not talking about gay rights instead, that leads me to wonder if:
- he's extremely dense
or
- he thinks the greater worry is that they might start doing this to male foetuses too.

Either way I take a dim view of someone telling us to 'reign it in' when he either didn't read the thread or read it and STILL didn't understand it.

Cyberwulf wrote:

You're absolutely right, McGee, it's time we ladies put a sock in it. It's bad enough we shit up the rest of the board with our special interest issue, which is of no interest to real people. Talking about it in a thread about female foetuses being experimented on to ensure 'feminine' girls is really too much. Let's all talk about the men instead. You know, something that's of interest to real people.

Since the treatment is given before the fetus' sex can be determined, about half of those being treated are boys. It would undoubtedly upset these parents terribly to get a feminine son. Of course, since the drug is known to cause brain damage in those developing fetuses, it may be that a lot of the parents who are trying this are going to wind up with mentally stunted children.

But hey, if it prevents that ungodly lesbianism and makes the girls into good little housewives and baby machines, it's all good, right? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Lady Anne wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

You're absolutely right, McGee, it's time we ladies put a sock in it. It's bad enough we shit up the rest of the board with our special interest issue, which is of no interest to real people. Talking about it in a thread about female foetuses being experimented on to ensure 'feminine' girls is really too much. Let's all talk about the men instead. You know, something that's of interest to real people.

Since the treatment is given before the fetus' sex can be determined, about half of those being treated are boys. It would undoubtedly upset these parents terribly to get a feminine son. Of course, since the drug is known to cause brain damage in those developing fetuses, it may be that a lot of the parents who are trying this are going to wind up with mentally stunted children.

But hey, if it prevents that ungodly lesbianism and makes the girls into good little housewives and baby machines, it's all good, right? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hey, it's real easy to keep someone repressed and obedient if they're missing half of their frontal lobe. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I don't know if what I just said should make us worry even more.

Luckily nobody does lobotomies anymore (not much, anyway). All that drooling is so unladylike.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Or perhaps see why he would be confused, especially if you're not intimately familiar with the term 'gender'?

If he's not familiar with the concept of gender after all the time he's spent here, it's his own damn fault.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Jay, the vast preponderence of things this 'treatment' is supposed to 'fix' are all behaviours perceived as 'unfeminine'. That affects FtMs, lesbians, bi girls and straight girls. When someone chides us for talking about femininity and feminism, because he can't understand why we're not talking about gay rights instead, that leads me to wonder if:
- he's extremely dense
or
- he thinks the greater worry is that they might start doing this to male foetuses too.

While the things this 'treatment' is supposed to 'fix' may be unfeminine behavior (and that is vile), it's not only female fetuses this would happen to because it's administered before the sex is decided (or can be known). So, yes, while most of the effects are targeted at women, the side-effects (brain damage, etc.) will still effect many men if it becomes common practice. He's not saying 'GUYS IT'S SO MUCH MORE HORRIBLE IF IT HAPPENS TO MEN, LET'S FOCUS ON THE MEN MEN MEN MEN', he's saying 'Hey guys it's pretty fucked up that they're doing this to fetuses at all, don't you think? Because it effects fetuses of both genders.' Like you once told me, Cy, the patriarchy doesn't just harm women.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Jay, the vast preponderence of things this 'treatment' is supposed to 'fix' are all behaviours perceived as 'unfeminine'. That affects FtMs, lesbians, bi girls and straight girls. When someone chides us for talking about femininity and feminism, because he can't understand why we're not talking about gay rights instead, that leads me to wonder if:
- he's extremely dense
or
- he thinks the greater worry is that they might start doing this to male foetuses too.

Either way I take a dim view of someone telling us to 'reign it in' when he either didn't read the thread or read it and STILL didn't understand it.

The suggestion to disentangle 'gay issues' from 'gender issues' must seriously make you lean towards the first option, yeah? And since quite a lot of people are extremely dense when it comes to gender issues, I'm not sure if aggressive sarcasm is always the best way to educate them.
Eh, comme ci, comme ça. Thanks for the answer, got where you're coming from now too.

Sutremaine wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

Or perhaps see why he would be confused, especially if you're not intimately familiar with the term 'gender'?

If he's not familiar with the concept of gender after all the time he's spent here, it's his own damn fault.

Yes. Cheesing off the guys who are willing to learn seems like the way to about things, don't it?