The Idea Gender is a Social Construct. Have You Ever Heard The Story of David Reimer? Watch

CookieButter
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1


Background:

‘Gender is a social construct’ You have probably heard this insane idea before. Putting it simply, it claims that there is no such thing as man or woman and that these identities are a product of pressures put on us by cultural beliefs…but where does this claim/idea come from? Well, it comes from feminist ‘Gender Schema Theory’ or ‘Gender Theory’ as it is more widely known. This 'theory' traces its routes back to feminism in the early 60s and is largely based on marxist and communist beliefs. Feminism is entirely based on this idea of Gender Theory. Its objectives? the destruction of the traditional family, along with normal sex roles, both of which it views as oppressive, sexist functions of our ‘patriarchal’ society. The ultimate goal being an androgynous society.

This is the story of David Reimer, a male who became an experiment to prove that gender is a social construct and wound up suffering the consequences of what happens when we go against our nature.

In the 60s a famous feminist psychologist going by the name of Dr. John Money began conducting an experiment to prove the feminist idea that gender was a ‘social construct’. He called this experiment the ‘John/Joan case’. Late in the 70s he proclaimed that this experiment had been a success and that it had managed to prove that gender is a social construct, by successfully transforming a boy into a girl!!!

The actual name of his guinea pig wasn’t John or Joan but David Reimer, a boy who’s genitals were severely damaged in a botched circumcision after he was born. He was taken on by the good doctor after the baby’s mother approached him for help. The doctor saw an opportunity in David, then only a few months old, and his twin brother to prove that gender was a social construct. So he began to try to mould David into a girl….He began by castrating him, totally removing his genitals. As a replacement for his genitals, surgeons made him a hole in his abdomen for him to urinate through. He then placed him on hormone therapy, gave him the name Brenda and began, together with David’s family, to raise him as a girl..…. This was the beginning of the torturous ordeal that this boy had to endure, for years to come, at the hands of this feminist. One of the many things that Doctor Money made the boy do during experimentation was to practice sex, with his twin brother, playing the role of a girl during this ‘procedure’. Dr. Money called this practice ‘sexual rehearsal play’ which he stated was important to a ‘healthy adult gender identity’.

Throughout the program, David exhibited male behaviour and violently rejected his female identity despite not knowing that he was a boy. However, results were fabricated by the good doctor and his team to make it look as though the experiment was a success. When David turned 15 the doctor tried to pressure his family into bringing the boy in for a surgical procedure in which a ‘vagina’ would be constructed for him. This is when his family decided to finally pull him from the program. His mother then told him the truth about his gender, that he was born a boy and that he had been a feminist experiment to prove that gender was a social construct. He returned to living his life as a male but he Suffered from many psychological, anatomical and physiological abnormalities brought about by years of indoctrination and experimentation. This eventually lead to him committing s*****e. His twin brother became diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The case of David was brought to public attention In the late 90s by Doctor Milton Diamond who exposed Dr. John Money for what he had done, which until then had been an issue strictly confined within the world of feminist academia. Dr. Money refused to accept that he had done anything wrong and blamed the negative attention that he was getting on ‘right wingers’ and ‘antifeminists’. His work was cited as evidence for gender being a social construct by feminist theorists, throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s. He is still celebrated as a hero and ‘sexual libertarian’ by feminist academics who defend his actions and carry on to cite his feminist ideas and experiments as evidence for their ‘gender theory’ to this day….

Dr. Money conducted similar experiments on other babies all of whom grew up to suffer from psychological illnesses and most of them wound up committing s*****e (David’s mother refers to this in the video).

Going against nature has a profound impact on our mental and physical stability. It impacts society as it pressures us into roles that do not conform with our biology, roles that do not play to our biological strengths. We should celebrate our differences, our male and female identities and play to their strengths as apposed to reject them.

The world (the history and ideas) of feminism is depraved and highly destructive….I’m certain that one day we will look back at feminism in the same way as we now look back at nazism.

(The video shown above is of David’s Mother talking about the experiment in a documentary in the 90s).

P.S. Dr. Money was known for defending pedophilia as a natural behaviour.

Side note: Feminism has played an important role in advocating and promoting pedophilia and the rights of pedophiles to have sex with children since the early 1900s. I will be making a thread about this soon.
3
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
In addition to this, I think the best argument against gender being some arbitrary social construct is the fact every human society, throughout history, on every continent, on every island, has a man-woman binary. There is no society on Earth (or none that I know of, at least) that is androgenous. And there is a common pattern: males are the providers and females are the carers. Males are masculine, females are feminine. Males are men, females are women. Even other species have gender binaries and social roles for males and females. It's not some human cultural invention. Heck, bees do.

Men and women have different physiologies and different hormone levels. This affects our behavior and what we do in our societies. While things like fashion and colour choices are mostly arbitrary and ever-changing, the overarching social and psychological differences aren't. That's why if you try to force a boy to live as a girl, you are going to mess him up royally.

Postmodernists are wrong when they say gender is a pure social construct independent from sex. The anthropological, psychological and biological evidence does not support them. Yet they are still forcing their ideas into academia and social policy. I'd even call what they're doing dangerous. And isn't it funny how most of them continue to confirm to this binary in some way despite their revelations?

Maybe they should try these experiments on themselves.
3
reply
austrianguy1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
I was always rather pro-equality in all social aspects, but I have to admit, this experiment (which I of course fact-checked) makes me think whether total equality would actually be beneficial for anyone...

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
.Iqra.
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
We watched that in psychology
0
reply
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Great thread as usual.
1
reply
loveleest
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
I heard about his story when I studied psychology in AS.
0
reply
AngryJellyfish
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by CookieButter)


Background:

‘Gender is a social construct’ You have probably heard this insane idea before. Putting it simply, it claims that there is no such thing as man or woman and that these identities are a product of pressures put on us by cultural beliefs…but where does this claim/idea come from? Well, it comes from feminist ‘Gender Schema Theory’ or ‘Gender Theory’ as it is more widely known. This 'theory' traces its routes back to feminism in the early 60s and is largely based on marxist and communist beliefs. Feminism is entirely based on this idea of Gender Theory. Its objectives? the destruction of the traditional family, along with normal sex roles, both of which it views as oppressive, sexist functions of our ‘patriarchal’ society. The ultimate goal being an androgynous society.

This is the story of David Reimer, a male who became an experiment to prove that gender is a social construct and wound up suffering the consequences of what happens when we go against our nature.

In the early 70s a famous feminist psychologist going by the name of Dr. John Money began conducting an experiment to prove the feminist idea that gender was a ‘social construct’. He called this experiment the ‘John/Joan case’. Late in the 70s he proclaimed that this experiment had been a success and that it had managed to prove that gender is a social construct, by successfully transforming a boy into a girl!!!

The actual name of his guinea pig wasn’t John or Joan but David Reimer, a boy who’s genitals were severely damaged in a botched circumcision after he was born. He was taken on by the good doctor after the baby’s mother approached him for help. The doctor saw an opportunity in David, then only a few months old, and his twin brother to prove that gender was a social construct. So he began to try to mould David into a girl….He began by castrating him, totally removing his genitals. As a replacement for his genitals, surgeons made him a hole in his abdomen for him to urinate through. He then placed him on hormone therapy, gave him the name Brenda and began, together with David’s family, to raise him as a girl..…. This was the beginning of the torturous ordeal that this boy had to endure, for years to come, at the hands of this feminist. One of the many things that Doctor Money made the boy do during experimentation was to practice sex, with his twin brother, playing the role of a girl during this ‘procedure’. Dr. Money called this practice ‘sexual rehearsal play’ which he stated was important to a ‘healthy adult gender identity’.

Throughout the program, David exhibited male behaviour and violently rejected his female identity despite not knowing that he was a boy. However, results were fabricated by the good doctor and his team to make it look as though the experiment was a success. When David turned 15 the doctor tried to pressure his family into bringing the boy in for a surgical procedure in which a ‘vagina’ would be constructed for him. This is when his family decided to finally pull him from the program. His mother then told him the truth about his gender, that he was born a boy and that he had been a feminist experiment to prove that gender was a social construct. He returned to living his life as a male but he Suffered from many psychological, anatomical and physiological abnormalities brought about by years of indoctrination and experimentation. This eventually lead to him committing s*****e. His twin brother became diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The case of David was brought to public attention In the late 90s by Doctor Milton Diamond who exposed Dr. John Money for what he had done, which until then had been an issue strictly confined within the world of feminist academia. Dr. Money refused to accept that he had done anything wrong and blamed the negative attention that he was getting on ‘right wingers’ and ‘antifeminists’. His work was cited as evidence for gender being a social construct by feminist theorists, throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s. He is still celebrated as a hero and ‘sexual libertarian’ by feminist academics who defend his actions and carry on to cite his feminist ideas and experiments as evidence for their ‘gender theory’ to this day….

Dr. Money conducted similar experiments on other babies all of whom grew up to suffer from psychological illnesses and most of them wound up committing s*****e (David’s mother refers to this in the video).

Going against nature has a profound impact on our mental and physical stability. It impacts society as it pressures us into roles that do not conform with our biology, roles that do not play to our biological strengths. We should celebrate our differences, our male and female identities and play to their strengths as apposed to reject them.

The world (the history and ideas) of feminism is depraved and highly destructive….I’m certain that one day we will look back at feminism in the same way as we now look back at nazism.

(The video shown above is of David’s Mother talking about the experiment in a documentary in the 90s).

P.S. Dr. Money was known for defending pedophilia as a natural behaviour.

Side note: Feminism has played an important role in advocating and promoting pedophilia and the rights of pedophiles to have sex with children since the early 1900s. I will be making a thread about this soon.
This is a sad case, and I think it's correct that the doctor in question should be vilified as opposed to celebrated for performing experiments on a child who is unable to consent. I'm also against medical interventions on intersex infants and children for the same reasons. I do believe that there are links between biological sex and a lot of gender roles, based on the fact that the majority of male people feel happy as men, and female people feel happy as women.

However, I was specifically tagged after commenting in another thread that 'I fail to see how identifying as neither/either/both (man or woman) or other harms anyone else'. My view remains unchanged - if the person in question does actually identify as neither/either/both or other. Nobody should be pressured into being something they feel they aren't, either at childhood or in adulthood. I guess the one harm that could come from this is people like Dr. Money forcing their own views on people, wanting them to be another gender, or perfect androgynes or whatever to suit their own agenda... but I'd argue the same thing has happened in our current society for a long time, only with people being expected to conform to the traditional gender binary, whether they feel comfortable with that or not.

(Original post by Dandaman1)
In addition to this, I think the best argument against gender being some arbitrary social construct is the fact every human society, throughout history, on every continent, on every island, has a man-woman binary. There is no society on Earth (or none that I know of, at least) that is androgenous. And there is a common pattern: males are the providers and females are the carers. Males are masculine, females are feminine. Males are men, females are women. Even other species have gender binaries and social roles for males and females. It's not some human cultural invention. Heck, bees do.
There have been (and continue to be) a few.
2
reply
Vikingninja
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
Sorry I'm just trying to get this right but he made a child have sex with their sibling?
0
reply
AmeliaLost
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
This experiment was screwed up from start to finish as should mostly be taken as a lesson in ethics; The method was clearly seriously flawed. Forcing a sibling to 'practice' sex with a sibling is incredibly disturbing, for instance, and something no sane person is suggesting. To make something clear - Feminism is not about forcing people to become something they're not, it's about giving them the freedom to make their own choices. Quite the opposite to this study.

Another viewpoint to take from it though - does society now understand how transgender people feel? In a softer tone, If a child insists they want to play with toy trucks, why would you give them dolls simply because they are female? Why would you not let her become a builder and him a beautician? Or judge them for those choices? Repression is repression.

RE gender-different societies, see native american two-spirits. Also note the various matriarchal societies that exist.
RE pedophilia, see Yiannopoulos as a recent example off the top of my head, not to mention the general advocacy of rape etc that's widespread in the MRA and Nazi community.

Also, why is the hard right-wing community so much louder on here than any other political/social group? It is just because you're all used to arguing on reddit etc and so it crosses over? It's so weird.
3
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
Clearly you have no idea what feminism is about, and get your ammunition from a few nutjobs.
1
reply
austrianguy1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by AmeliaLost)

RE pedophilia, see Yiannopoulos as a recent example off the top of my head, not to mention the general advocacy of rape etc that's widespread in the MRA and Nazi community.

Also, why is the hard right-wing community so much louder on here than any other political/social group? It is just because you're all used to arguing on reddit etc and so it crosses over? It's so weird.
I totally agree with you about the paragraphs of yours I have not quoted here. But I want to give my opinion about the last two paragraphs.

Basically, you try to defend "the left wing" by pointing your finger at right-wing examples. While it is true that there are right-wing advocates who have no problem with pedophilia or even pratice it themselves, does this justify the examples on the left wing? I don't think so.

Personally, I'm progressive, and my opinion is basically the same as the one you expressed in the beginning of your post. But just because you are left-wing or right-wing (or moderate), doesn't mean you have to celebrate EVERYTHING that seems to be a thing among people from this community. You are allowed to still decide yourself what you stand for. That's why I don't think it's okay to call everyone who views the topic of this thread critically a "hard right-wing".
0
reply
Dheorl
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by Dandaman1)
In addition to this, I think the best argument against gender being some arbitrary social construct is the fact every human society, throughout history, on every continent, on every island, has a man-woman binary. There is no society on Earth (or none that I know of, at least) that is androgenous. And there is a common pattern: males are the providers and females are the carers. Males are masculine, females are feminine. Males are men, females are women. Even other species have gender binaries and social roles for males and females. It's not some human cultural invention. Heck, bees do.
I'm not going to get into whatever screwed up agenda the OP has, but just want to discuss this a second.

For starters there has never been a common pattern of males being providers. AFAIK in virtually every hunter gather society that is still in existence, sure, the men are the hunters, but the women do the majority of the gathering, providing equal if not more resources to the tribe than the men do. Equally the boundaries are blurred between providing and care when it comes to shelter building/protecting the tribe from animals/other tribes etc.

Beyond that, moving into other species social roles are not a given, for instance with many bird species, both male and female care for the chick and go out hunting/gathering in equal measure. Even when there are defined roles with one gender doing the majority of the hunting etc, the other will join in pretty much whenever needed.

These are also the most basic of functions which our society has moved well beyond. Every time a new invention is created we seem to have this need to pigeon hole it for a select group with no reason. For instance computer games are more acceptable for men, somehow reading has ended up more acceptable for women. Skateboarding is for guys, dancing is for girls (despite them both being nothing more than a stylistic display of ability). In a society where we no longer have hunter/gather roles we have for some crazy reason tried to completely arbitrarily split activities by gender. Sure, at one point the gender roles may have been defined by the biological differences, but despite being well beyond that point we're still trying to do it.
1
reply
AmeliaLost
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by austrianguy1)
I totally agree with you about the paragraphs of yours I have not quoted here. But I want to give my opinion about the last two paragraphs.

Basically, you try to defend "the left wing" by pointing your finger at right-wing examples. While it is true that there are right-wing advocates who have no problem with pedophilia or even pratice it themselves, does this justify the examples on the left wing? I don't think so.

Personally, I'm progressive, and my opinion is basically the same as the one you expressed in the beginning of your post. But just because you are left-wing or right-wing (or moderate), doesn't mean you have to celebrate EVERYTHING that seems to be a thing among people from this community. You are allowed to still decide yourself what you stand for. That's why I don't think it's okay to call everyone who views the topic of this thread critically a "hard right-wing".
I was emphasizing that people do messed up things all across the political spectrum. That's people, not politics.

Saying feminists are pedophiles was a bizarre end note that I couldn't resist calling out even though it didn't really support my argument at all.

The last paragraph was just because it's a thing I've noticed. It's really rare that I get involved in the debate forum so seemed like an opportune time to ask the question, especially as Cookiebutter seems to be one of the common posters I see on the LD feed. I don't see many full-communist proponents around here for instance, or a lot of people who are very left-wing. I do see a lot of people who are very aggressive toward the left though, whether they're MRAs or Nazis or something softer.
2
reply
G0at boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by AmeliaLost)
The last paragraph was just because it's a thing I've noticed. It's really rare that I get involved in the debate forum so seemed like an opportune time to ask the question, especially as Cookiebutter seems to be one of the common posters I see on the LD feed. I don't see many full-communist proponents around here for instance, or a lot of people who are very left-wing. I do see a lot of people who are very aggressive toward the left though, whether they're MRAs or Nazis or something softer.
I imagine there are all kinds of reasons for this but ultimately it comes down to moderation and the CT, It's very easy to uncover the CTs biases.
0
reply
CookieButter
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Postmodernists are wrong when they say gender is a pure social construct independent from sex. The anthropological, psychological and biological evidence does not support them. Yet they are still forcing their ideas into academia and social policy. I'd even call what they're doing dangerous. And isn't it funny how most of them continue to confirm to this binary in some way despite their revelations?
Feminists exercise huge influence on universities. No one within academia dares oppose them. If you so much as disagree with them or what they say you will wind up loosing your job and your career no matter how high up the ladder you are. Take what happened to Professor Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, as a great example for this. He was pressured out of his job when he incurred the wrath of feminists within academia by simply suggesting the idea that the wage gap might be caused by "innate" differences between the two genders.

Let me give you an example from here in the UK. The student union has woman officers that deal with women’s interests within higher education across Britain. Thanks to feminism, every university has a women's officer but no male role equivalent, this despite the fact that males are a “disadvantaged group” and females an “advantaged group” in higher education. This is not by my assessment but by the assessment of UCAS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...ged-group.html

Feminists in the student union have successfully blocked the formation of a male role equivalent to the role of women's officer within the student union across the UK, not only that, but they have successfully blocked attempts by men to form groups simply advocating men’s issues, in universities around the country. Two recent examples being the university of Staffordshire, which had the men’s officer role blocked by a ‘woman’s network’ who called the idea of a men’s rights advocacy role “dangerous”. Another example is the university of Durham who’s student union blocked a society set up by a male student to raise awareness about male suicide after his friend killed himself, because feminists within the union thought that it was “too controversial”. Only one university in the UK has so far beaten feminists in the union and managed to establish a role to represent men. That is the keele University. The student union initially rejected the idea of a men’s rights advocacy role as being ‘not necessary’ because feminists within the union thought that ‘men do not suffer discrimination’ and they fought hard to abolish this role but lost the fight thanks to the share number of students within keele that supported the idea.


(Original post by AngryJellyfish)
However, I was specifically tagged after commenting in another thread that 'I fail to see how identifying as neither/either/both or other harms anyone else'.
How can you say that it does not do harm to anyone else? His entire life and that of everyone around him was harmed, no destroyed.… but more importantly the harm was not restricted to him and people around him but to other people around the world. His story acted as evidence to support the idea that gender is really a social construct, therefore encouraging others to suffer harm like him. Also, like I stated before, going against our nature negatively impacts society. It pressures us into roles that do not conform with our biology, our strengths.

Even if it did not cause any harm to anyone else besides David, which it cannot because we are all connected to each other, so any choice that we make will impact our surroundings and if this choice was wrong then it would nagtively impact everything around us, but lets assume that it did not. Lets assume that no-one but David was harmed by this choice. It still caused harm. A person suffered mental health problems and died as result of going against their nature. harm caused to one person is harm caused to society….

(Original post by Vikingninja)
Sorry I'm just trying to get this right but he made a child have sex with their sibling?
“Reimer said that Dr. Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role. Reimer said that, as a child, he had to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks". Reimer said that Dr. Money forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Reimer said that Dr. Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections". On at "least one occasion", Reimer said that Dr. Money took a photograph of the two children doing these activities.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

(Original post by austrianguy1)
I was always rather pro-equality in all social aspects, but I have to admit, this experiment (which I of course fact-checked) makes me think whether total equality would actually be beneficial for anyone... Posted from TSR Mobile
Why has this experiment made you question the need for equality? I think you might be confusing what feminists think and do, with equality. Feminism is not equality.
0
reply
Vikingninja
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by CookieButter)
Feminists exercise huge influence on universities. No one within academia dares oppose them. If you so much as disagree with them or what they say you will wind up loosing your job and your career no matter how high up the ladder you are. Take what happened to Professor Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, as a great example for this. He was pressured out of his job when he incurred the wrath of feminists within academia by simply suggesting the idea that the wage gap might be caused by "innate" differences between the two genders.

Let me give you an example from here in the UK. The student union has woman officers that deal with women’s interests within higher education across Britain. Thanks to feminism, every university has a women's officer but no male role equivalent, this despite the fact that males are a “disadvantaged group” and females an “advantaged group” in higher education. This is not by my assessment but by the assessment of UCAS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...ged-group.html

Feminists in the student union have successfully blocked the formation of a male role equivalent to the role of women's officer within the student union across the UK, not only that, but they have successfully blocked attempts by men to form groups simply advocating men’s issues, in universities around the country. Two recent examples being the university of Staffordshire, which had the men’s officer role blocked by a ‘woman’s network’ who called the idea of a men’s rights advocacy role “dangerous”. Another example is the university of Durham who’s student union blocked a society set up by a male student to raise awareness about male suicide after his friend killed himself, because feminists within the union thought that it was “too controversial”. Only one university in the UK has so far beaten feminists in the union and managed to establish a role to represent men. That is the keele University. The student union initially rejected the idea of a men’s rights advocacy role as being ‘not necessary’ because feminists within the union thought that ‘men do not suffer discrimination’ and they fought hard to abolish this role but lost the fight thanks to the share number of students within keele that supported the idea.




How can you say that it does not do harm to anyone else? His entire life and that of everyone around him was harmed, no destroyed.… but more importantly the harm was not restricted to him and people around him but to other people around the world. His story acted as evidence to support the idea that gender is really a social construct, therefore encouraging others to suffer harm like him. Also, like I stated before, going against our nature negatively impacts society. It pressures us into roles that do not conform with our biology, our strengths.

Even if it did not cause any harm to anyone else besides David, which it cannot because we are all connected to each other, so any choice that we make will impact our surroundings and if this choice was wrong then it would nagtively impact everything around us, but lets assume that it did not. Lets assume that no-one but David was harmed by this choice. It still caused harm. A person suffered mental health problems and died as result of going against their nature. harm caused to one person is harm caused to society….



“Reimer said that Dr. Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role. Reimer said that, as a child, he had to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks". Reimer said that Dr. Money forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Reimer said that Dr. Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections". On at "least one occasion", Reimer said that Dr. Money took a photograph of the two children doing these activities.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer



I think you are confusing what feminists think and do with equality. Feminism is not equality.
And he is referred to a lot by feminists etc on genders being social constructs?
1
reply
AngryJellyfish
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by CookieButter)
How can you say that it does not do harm to anyone else? His entire life and that of everyone around him was harmed, no destroyed.… but more importantly the harm was not restricted to him and people around him but to other people around the world. His story acted as evidence to support the idea that gender is really a social construct, therefore encouraging others to suffer harm like him. Also, like I stated before, going against our nature negatively impacts society. It pressures us into roles that do not conform with our biology, our strengths.

Even if it did not cause any harm to anyone else besides David, which it cannot because we are all connected to each other, so any choice that we make will impact our surroundings and if this choice was wrong then it would nagtively impact everything around us, but lets assume that it did not. Lets assume that no-one but David was harmed by this choice. It still caused harm. A person suffered mental health problems and died as result of going against their nature. harm caused to one person is harm caused to society….
Being forced to be something that you're not is harmful. On that we agree 100%. This flawed 'experiment' was harmful, and if it is indeed still being cited as fact then that should be stopped.

Again, however, I point out that I'm referring to people, adults, deciding for themselves that they don't fit the gender binary. Not being forced into it. Not forcing anyone else into it. That's all my comment has ever mentioned or referred to. If people don't have the freedom to identify however they wish, and are instead forced to conform as men or women, surely it's them that are being made to go against their nature?
0
reply
CookieButter
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by Vikingninja)
And he is referred to a lot by feminists etc on genders being social constructs?
Yes and not only by average feminists but by the pioneers of feminist theory. Feminists who's ideas and theories shaped the feminism of today. Let me give you a quick example, Kate Millett, one of the pioneers of the feminist idea that gender is a social construct claimed that “there is no differentiation between the sexes at birth,” in her 1965 book entitled Sexual Politics (pages 30-31). She referenced Dr. John Money's theories and experiments as evidence for this.
0
reply
Vikingninja
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by CookieButter)
Not only by average feminists but by the pioneers of feminist theory. Feminists who's ideas and theories shaped the feminism of today. Let me give you a quick example, Kate Millet, one of the pioneers of the feminist idea that gender is a social construct claimed that "“there is no differentiation between the sexes at birth,” in her 1965 book entitled sexual politics (pages 30-31). She referenced Dr. John Money's theories and experiments as evidence for this.


Bit awkward that the first short meme involving that error was about genders. Do they even look at the fact that he did this **** and notice it? Was he arrested?
0
reply
Luke Kostanjsek
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by AngryJellyfish)
Again, however, I point out that I'm referring to people, adults, deciding for themselves that they don't fit the gender binary. Not being forced into it. Not forcing anyone else into it. That's all my comment has ever mentioned or referred to. If people don't have the freedom to identify however they wish, and are instead forced to conform as men or women, surely it's them that are being made to go against their nature?
I'm not sure I agree with you there; you need only look at the suicide rates in post-operative transgender people to see this is not necessarily the case. With mental illnesses more generally, giving people the freedom to make their own decisions and act upon them can quite often not be safe, for themselves or others.

Which isn't to say that transgenderism is definitely a mental illness - personally, I think the jury is still out on that one - but what data is available certainly should give people pause for thought. I think the real issue here is the suppression of legitimate scientific discourse about the correct treatment plan for individuals expressing these beliefs. The pro-trans movement, much like so many rights movements in the West, has crossed from advocating for people who were previously marginalised and discriminated against, to an almost religious fanaticism where any disagreement is unacceptable. The irony of this is that ultimately, they are harming the people that they are trying to advocate for.

A prime example of this is the controversy surrounding Dr Paul McHugh. Here's a man with an illustrious career in psychiatry who was taken to the cleaners because his view was that sexual reassignment surgery does more harm than good; a view that he holds on based on a long career in the field and several cited studies, and yet it somehow means he is transphobic.
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Who do you think will be the next PM?

Boris Johnson (64)
67.37%
Jeremy Hunt (31)
32.63%

Watched Threads

View All