Wondering about the pros and cons of testosterone and estrogen. I learned a truth when I was very young and have to remind myself now and then. It says that nature does not create anything that is superfluous.
Good point that nature does not create unnecessary things. The research now is showing how the same hormone impacts mothers and fathers differently and stimulates very different responses. Both responses are needed.
All the institutions are feminist, have been for many decades. Any 'research' coming out of them will be feminist, i.e., masculine-hating.
Their 'men and masculinities' programs are just more bullshit. You don't get hired in those places for having a set of balls.
U.S. public schools and colleges are the conditioning and breeding-grounds for feminism, globalism, race-grifting, homosexuality, and ever-so-much-more. The brainwashing of children begins at age 5 or 6 and often continues into the late twenties. My solution for universities has not changed: burn them to the ground and lime them over carefully.
Estrogen in everything ain't an accident for sure.
I'm afraid the rabbit hole on this feminism business goes all the way down. I do not overstate when I say that America was a nation planned by European elite interests long before any Puritans showed up. And they definitely were NOT Christians.
They intended -- and effected -- a nation that serves as no less than a pedestal, a global throne, for their ancient and present goddess, in the ideo-political guise of global feminism. This goddess figure has always been the deity worshipped by the 'elites' of this world; the iconography extant is extensive.
Hi Michael I agree with you but to be pedantic: the universities (buildings) shouldn't be burned, but the people running and attending them. And not just them, but also politicians, rich fucks and other gynocentric devildicksuckers that promote this nonsense. Articles like these are just marketing and promotion for feminist and gynocentric talking points. Just like the news agencies, social media platforms and God knows how much more. It is everywhere and the "anointed" as Dr. Sowell calls them are a good starting point, but we can almost start anywhere really, as it is any- and everywhere.
Thank you, Tom. I appreciate your careful "deconstruction" of ideology dressed up as science.
You note that status is associated with increased ability to attract a partner. I believe that men know deep down that they must be successful to attract a partner and have kids. Otherwise, they won't have the opportunity pass down their genes.
On the topic of misunderstood words, I would include "aggression" itself. Most people assume that aggression is a bad thing and see images of cavemen smacking each other over the head with cudgels. And sometimes, that is the result of aggression. But the word refers more generally to psychological and physiological readiness for action, which can include leadership. And, apart from anything else, leaders defend others from attack by outsiders. No community could exist, in short, without the aggression of at least some members.
As I say, though, aggression has a psychological dimension, too. It can lead to physical intimidation, for instance, but also to psychological intimidation. And this phenomenon is by no means confined to men. Not being a physician, let alone an endocrinologist, I don't know precisely where the psychological aggression of women originates, but I do know that they wield it with expertise to intimidate not only other women but also men.
Well said Paul. You can aggressively pursue something and that can have nothing to do with violence. But the word aggression has been linked to violence and this seems to be a way to shame men for their assertiveness.
Aggression can be not only passively non-violent, Tom, but also actively non-violent--that is, necessary and therefore good. The most obvious examples have been the non-violent--but surely aggressive--resistance to tyranny that both Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated.
Instead of admitting the relation between good and bad aggression, many people indicate the difference by distinguishing between "aggressive" (which connotes not only evil but also maleness) and "assertive" (which connotes not only good but also femaleness). Women are never aggressive, supposedly, only "assertive" or "feisty" or even "ballsy."
Let’s not allow feminists to manipulate everyone by means of linguistic legerdemain--even if it means repeating the definition of "aggressive" over and over again or else using it routinely to describe women and replacing it with “assertive” to describe men.
So true. It is little studied and generally ignored that scientific studies generally seek to bolster presuppositions, not always stemming from scientific inquiry. Rarely do they set out to refute ideas already strongly held by "the science." Science, like religion and politics, is biased toward received truth. It is largely a myth that scientists always pursues truth wherever it leads.
Both testosterone and estrogen are present the both sexes. There working in whatever balance in each individual determines their individual personalities. And both are required to keep extremes from warping an individual. I would think that artificially altering that balance should be very carefully done, and that seems unlikely given the ubiquity of wrong concepts regarding gender.
Have you seen the fake boys and Men in the UK from Reeves? Its disgusting how the left, Who has made everything to destroy men, are now trying to reengage trhough a false narrative.
This is not new. Testosterone replacement risks have always been exaggerated. It is not unusual that the establishment gets results from studies done with steroid abusers, people that submit themselves to long regimens of hormone administration in doses orders of magnitude higher than physiological levels and act as if the average guy looking just to have a perfectly normal level on the upper bands of the physiological levels is surely going to surely have an aggressive cancer and get a heart the size of a basketball.
Woman can biohack with hormones at their hearts content to avoid conception. In my country, hormonal contraceptives are, for all practical purposes, OTC medicines. But, god forbid a man wanting to improve their health and their well-being. Testosterone injections in Brazil are treated the same as opioid drugs, where doctors that prescribe then "too much" are called to explain themselves.
Worldwide, studies on novel mechanisms of testosterone administration are almost inexistent. The latest big new product was the little effective and highly variable gels, and this was decades ago. No self tests, no smart time release formulations.
And even medical training is heavily biased towards treating testosterone as if it was a dangerous toxin. The few doctors that pushed the boundaries on Testosterone usually came from the field of sports medicine, where their practice had some latitude for experimentation and empirical research. If sports didn't make so much money, we wouldn't even have the applied science on male hormone therapy that came from it.
Thanks for this comment. T is certainly regulated here in the states. It is interesting how it seems to be considerably less regulated when given to women who want to be trans. They give them huge doses. Really appreciate the information about this in Brazil. great to hear from other countries.
Wondering about the pros and cons of testosterone and estrogen. I learned a truth when I was very young and have to remind myself now and then. It says that nature does not create anything that is superfluous.
Good point that nature does not create unnecessary things. The research now is showing how the same hormone impacts mothers and fathers differently and stimulates very different responses. Both responses are needed.
All the institutions are feminist, have been for many decades. Any 'research' coming out of them will be feminist, i.e., masculine-hating.
Their 'men and masculinities' programs are just more bullshit. You don't get hired in those places for having a set of balls.
U.S. public schools and colleges are the conditioning and breeding-grounds for feminism, globalism, race-grifting, homosexuality, and ever-so-much-more. The brainwashing of children begins at age 5 or 6 and often continues into the late twenties. My solution for universities has not changed: burn them to the ground and lime them over carefully.
Start with the Ivy League.
Yup, but I would say the brainwashing starts before5 or 6. It's in the drinking water....
Estrogen in everything ain't an accident for sure.
I'm afraid the rabbit hole on this feminism business goes all the way down. I do not overstate when I say that America was a nation planned by European elite interests long before any Puritans showed up. And they definitely were NOT Christians.
They intended -- and effected -- a nation that serves as no less than a pedestal, a global throne, for their ancient and present goddess, in the ideo-political guise of global feminism. This goddess figure has always been the deity worshipped by the 'elites' of this world; the iconography extant is extensive.
Hi Michael I agree with you but to be pedantic: the universities (buildings) shouldn't be burned, but the people running and attending them. And not just them, but also politicians, rich fucks and other gynocentric devildicksuckers that promote this nonsense. Articles like these are just marketing and promotion for feminist and gynocentric talking points. Just like the news agencies, social media platforms and God knows how much more. It is everywhere and the "anointed" as Dr. Sowell calls them are a good starting point, but we can almost start anywhere really, as it is any- and everywhere.
I prefer the symbolic act of taking down the building. Has psychological value.
But I'm open minded. Each to his own. Why not embrace both?
Thank you, Tom. I appreciate your careful "deconstruction" of ideology dressed up as science.
You note that status is associated with increased ability to attract a partner. I believe that men know deep down that they must be successful to attract a partner and have kids. Otherwise, they won't have the opportunity pass down their genes.
Yes, exactly DC.
On the topic of misunderstood words, I would include "aggression" itself. Most people assume that aggression is a bad thing and see images of cavemen smacking each other over the head with cudgels. And sometimes, that is the result of aggression. But the word refers more generally to psychological and physiological readiness for action, which can include leadership. And, apart from anything else, leaders defend others from attack by outsiders. No community could exist, in short, without the aggression of at least some members.
As I say, though, aggression has a psychological dimension, too. It can lead to physical intimidation, for instance, but also to psychological intimidation. And this phenomenon is by no means confined to men. Not being a physician, let alone an endocrinologist, I don't know precisely where the psychological aggression of women originates, but I do know that they wield it with expertise to intimidate not only other women but also men.
Well said Paul. You can aggressively pursue something and that can have nothing to do with violence. But the word aggression has been linked to violence and this seems to be a way to shame men for their assertiveness.
Aggression can be not only passively non-violent, Tom, but also actively non-violent--that is, necessary and therefore good. The most obvious examples have been the non-violent--but surely aggressive--resistance to tyranny that both Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated.
Instead of admitting the relation between good and bad aggression, many people indicate the difference by distinguishing between "aggressive" (which connotes not only evil but also maleness) and "assertive" (which connotes not only good but also femaleness). Women are never aggressive, supposedly, only "assertive" or "feisty" or even "ballsy."
Let’s not allow feminists to manipulate everyone by means of linguistic legerdemain--even if it means repeating the definition of "aggressive" over and over again or else using it routinely to describe women and replacing it with “assertive” to describe men.
So true. It is little studied and generally ignored that scientific studies generally seek to bolster presuppositions, not always stemming from scientific inquiry. Rarely do they set out to refute ideas already strongly held by "the science." Science, like religion and politics, is biased toward received truth. It is largely a myth that scientists always pursues truth wherever it leads.
Both testosterone and estrogen are present the both sexes. There working in whatever balance in each individual determines their individual personalities. And both are required to keep extremes from warping an individual. I would think that artificially altering that balance should be very carefully done, and that seems unlikely given the ubiquity of wrong concepts regarding gender.
Have you seen the fake boys and Men in the UK from Reeves? Its disgusting how the left, Who has made everything to destroy men, are now trying to reengage trhough a false narrative.
This is not new. Testosterone replacement risks have always been exaggerated. It is not unusual that the establishment gets results from studies done with steroid abusers, people that submit themselves to long regimens of hormone administration in doses orders of magnitude higher than physiological levels and act as if the average guy looking just to have a perfectly normal level on the upper bands of the physiological levels is surely going to surely have an aggressive cancer and get a heart the size of a basketball.
Woman can biohack with hormones at their hearts content to avoid conception. In my country, hormonal contraceptives are, for all practical purposes, OTC medicines. But, god forbid a man wanting to improve their health and their well-being. Testosterone injections in Brazil are treated the same as opioid drugs, where doctors that prescribe then "too much" are called to explain themselves.
Worldwide, studies on novel mechanisms of testosterone administration are almost inexistent. The latest big new product was the little effective and highly variable gels, and this was decades ago. No self tests, no smart time release formulations.
And even medical training is heavily biased towards treating testosterone as if it was a dangerous toxin. The few doctors that pushed the boundaries on Testosterone usually came from the field of sports medicine, where their practice had some latitude for experimentation and empirical research. If sports didn't make so much money, we wouldn't even have the applied science on male hormone therapy that came from it.
Thanks for this comment. T is certainly regulated here in the states. It is interesting how it seems to be considerably less regulated when given to women who want to be trans. They give them huge doses. Really appreciate the information about this in Brazil. great to hear from other countries.
Therpeutic doses of testosterone have a calming effect on men.
Really? I wasn't aware of that. Interesting. I knew that at one time it was used as an antidepressant, but that was a long time ago.
Most things are a Faustian bargain 💙