4 ms·

I was so with you until the last paragraph. I don't think that's either relevant or constructive. I'd posit that you make your particular hormone balance a part

I was so with you until the last paragraph. I don't think that's either relevant or constructive. I'd posit that you make your particular hormone balance a part of your identity so I'm confused why you're surprised others do. By all means we should be trying to make sure as many people as possible can live happy lives, but saying something like being gay is a hormone imbalance isn't that. I think there's a way you could phrase your point, if the conclusion ended up being true, but without evidence it comes across as just more of a phobia

Jarwain 4y ago
I feel pretty out of the loop here; is there a strain of beliefs that sexuality is based on some hormone imbalance?
- Dma54rhs 4y ago
  Think the keyword here is transgender people.
- space_fountain 4y ago
  Sorry perhaps I should have been less cagey. They didn't specify but I suspect they meant trans people or maybe asexual people when they say some people make a hormone imbalance part of their identity, but really I think you see this sort of rhetoric about most marginalized identity groups. I've definitely heard the same about gay people in the past. The point is this sort of rhetoric divorced from evidence seems likely to be motivated by bias. Obviously it doesn't have to be, and the goal should always be trying to make sure people live happy lives, but even if this were true, chemicals are turning the people gay, trans, ect, that shouldn't actually invalidate their identities or for that matter mean we shouldn't ban the chemicals. Side note: the historic record is clear that all these groups have existed before plastics so the most you might imagine is that the odds have gone up
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    >The point is this sort of rhetoric divorced from evidence seems likely to be motivated by bias If trans people don't have hormone imbalances, why are they treated with hormone replacement... Obviously they have hormone imbalances the only question is how and why.
    - space_fountain 4y ago
      I think you might be saying something quite different than I was complaining about. Saying trans people are trans because they had a hormone imbalance (presumably not enough hormones for the sex they were assigned at birth) isn't the same at all as saying trans people are trans because they didn't have enough hormones to develop as is typical for the gender they identify as. I'm not sure that conflating those two and saying both imply a hormone imbalance is useful, but if you want sure. The original comment was pretty clearly implying the former though right? It would be really weird if plastic was causing more xy people to develop with low estrogen levels than would have otherwise
      - dcow 4y ago
        I'm lost too. The original issue you had was with the idea that we can't study (and have a hard time even talking about, honestly) hormone imbalances as a problem when, because the "problem" has been present for long enough, people have normalized the problem and made it part of their identity. I have no problem coexisting with trans people. I also find it acceptable to study whether hormone imbalances in humans may be caused by unnatural additions to our environment such as is the case with chemicals that disrupt our endocrine systems despite whether they lead to or are even relevant in said human identifying with some other gender or not. Do you share my stance or are you saying that assigning one balance as normal and other "balances" as irregular is harmful because it, in your mind, runs counter to the normalization of trans people in our society (which I might call out assumes that hormone imbalances are in fact responsible generally for cases of transgender individual).
        space_fountain 4y ago
        What is confusing? What are you lost about? It sounds like you disagree with me and believe that being trans is likely caused by a hormone imbalance in the the first way I ascribed to the original commenter. That's something you're allowed to do, though there was a reason I tried to focus the conversation on the gay issue. The fact that that situation is more resolved makes the whole thing more obvious, but it doesn't have anything to do with my comment being confusing and I don't care to have the argument you seem to want to have
  - concinds 4y ago
    > even if this were true, chemicals are turning the people gay, trans, ect, that shouldn't actually invalidate their identities or for that matter mean we shouldn't ban the chemicals I think given the existence of detransitioners (https://reddit.com/r/detrans https://reddit.com/r/detrans), there's a strong case to be made in support of rigorous research studying these links. Regardless of anyone's innate identity (born a X in a X's body), it's very plausible that detransitioners are examples of hormonal effects (TFA is one of many articles that talks of lifelong effects of hormonal imbalances in the womb) that were incorrectly interpreted as an essentialist, innate thing.
- tremon 4y ago
  Why would it be based on an imbalance? The way we interact with other persons is definitely informed by our hormonal makeup, regardless of whether that makeup is temporary, permanent, balanced, or unbalanced.
  - space_fountain 4y ago
    Yes, exactly, but imbalance is in the eye of the beholder
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Jarwain 4y ago

I feel pretty out of the loop here; is there a strain of beliefs that sexuality is based on some hormone imbalance?

Dma54rhs 4y ago
Think the keyword here is transgender people.
space_fountain 4y ago
Sorry perhaps I should have been less cagey. They didn't specify but I suspect they meant trans people or maybe asexual people when they say some people make a hormone imbalance part of their identity, but really I think you see this sort of rhetoric about most marginalized identity groups. I've definitely heard the same about gay people in the past. The point is this sort of rhetoric divorced from evidence seems likely to be motivated by bias. Obviously it doesn't have to be, and the goal should always be trying to make sure people live happy lives, but even if this were true, chemicals are turning the people gay, trans, ect, that shouldn't actually invalidate their identities or for that matter mean we shouldn't ban the chemicals. Side note: the historic record is clear that all these groups have existed before plastics so the most you might imagine is that the odds have gone up
- whatshisface 4y ago
  >The point is this sort of rhetoric divorced from evidence seems likely to be motivated by bias If trans people don't have hormone imbalances, why are they treated with hormone replacement... Obviously they have hormone imbalances the only question is how and why.
  - space_fountain 4y ago
    I think you might be saying something quite different than I was complaining about. Saying trans people are trans because they had a hormone imbalance (presumably not enough hormones for the sex they were assigned at birth) isn't the same at all as saying trans people are trans because they didn't have enough hormones to develop as is typical for the gender they identify as. I'm not sure that conflating those two and saying both imply a hormone imbalance is useful, but if you want sure. The original comment was pretty clearly implying the former though right? It would be really weird if plastic was causing more xy people to develop with low estrogen levels than would have otherwise
    - dcow 4y ago
      I'm lost too. The original issue you had was with the idea that we can't study (and have a hard time even talking about, honestly) hormone imbalances as a problem when, because the "problem" has been present for long enough, people have normalized the problem and made it part of their identity. I have no problem coexisting with trans people. I also find it acceptable to study whether hormone imbalances in humans may be caused by unnatural additions to our environment such as is the case with chemicals that disrupt our endocrine systems despite whether they lead to or are even relevant in said human identifying with some other gender or not. Do you share my stance or are you saying that assigning one balance as normal and other "balances" as irregular is harmful because it, in your mind, runs counter to the normalization of trans people in our society (which I might call out assumes that hormone imbalances are in fact responsible generally for cases of transgender individual).
      - space_fountain 4y ago
        What is confusing? What are you lost about? It sounds like you disagree with me and believe that being trans is likely caused by a hormone imbalance in the the first way I ascribed to the original commenter. That's something you're allowed to do, though there was a reason I tried to focus the conversation on the gay issue. The fact that that situation is more resolved makes the whole thing more obvious, but it doesn't have anything to do with my comment being confusing and I don't care to have the argument you seem to want to have
- concinds 4y ago
  > even if this were true, chemicals are turning the people gay, trans, ect, that shouldn't actually invalidate their identities or for that matter mean we shouldn't ban the chemicals I think given the existence of detransitioners (https://reddit.com/r/detrans https://reddit.com/r/detrans), there's a strong case to be made in support of rigorous research studying these links. Regardless of anyone's innate identity (born a X in a X's body), it's very plausible that detransitioners are examples of hormonal effects (TFA is one of many articles that talks of lifelong effects of hormonal imbalances in the womb) that were incorrectly interpreted as an essentialist, innate thing.
tremon 4y ago
Why would it be based on an imbalance? The way we interact with other persons is definitely informed by our hormonal makeup, regardless of whether that makeup is temporary, permanent, balanced, or unbalanced.
- space_fountain 4y ago
  Yes, exactly, but imbalance is in the eye of the beholder

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]