Topic: Is society celebrating something they should be furious about? (Feminized Men) (Read 1657 times)

...if ED is a problem in a segment of the male population, why don't docs fix it?...
Maybe the answer is because this stuff is really hard?...

Okay, let's look at topic/slant/perspective #2 - feminization of men.

What this reminds me of is a change from the "tough guy" 1980s movie hero - Arnold, Willis, etc, to the softened down metrosexual movie star profiles that came after that era.  Yes there are exceptions and today there are tough guy profiles but not that many.  I always thought this was a media creation, and not a basic change caused by drugging of the population.

So are you arguing it is a systemic population change, and not simply programming (or the attempt to program the populations?)

I agree that it's really hard. As an aside, maybe the reason it's really hard, is because it's not supposed to be done.

And the reason people have problems after they go through it is because they've turned their back on who they really were, and trying to be something they are not. But that's just IMHO.

Feel free to let the whole thread stand on the issues of hormones in the water supply if that floats your boat. I think the conclusion still stands, that people should be upset, and yet the general population are celebrating this feminization of men when they should be furious. But I know the type of people I'm talking about are the type of people who are not reading this.

Let me give you an analogy.  For at least 50 years women have had the option of silicon for breast corrections/augmentation/etc.  And there are STILL PROBLEMS!  Similarly, if ED is a problem in a segment of the male population, why don't docs fix it?  The entire ED population is certainly thousands of times larger than the F-M population or the wannabe possible population. 

Maybe the answer is because this stuff is really hard?

On that subject, the last study I read on long term outcomes of M-F was pretty dismal.  It wasn't understood whether the reasons were the population that elected for the surgery had numerous other mental health issues, or whether it was caused in whole or part by the procedures.  I suspect at least in part the latter, though because biological organisms are very, very complex systems, and monkeying around with one part changes lots of other parts.

But yeah like I said, the argument for feminization of men through junk like hormones in the water supply can stand alone and maybe should.

I was always talking about "M-impotent, erecticle disfunction M" in the first post, so I don't know why you're arguing that there is some "illusionary F-M" that I somehow claimed earlier. You obviously saw something that wasn't there.

My whole point was why aren't there more scientists learning how to make the ideal Female to Male transformation happen? If females wanting to be transformed as much as males wanted to be transformed into women, then we would see some movement happening here. Some feminist people would be rallying the scientists into making this happen now so people can feel more themselves.

And they're not 2 separate arguments, they're just 2 points pointing towards the same conclusion. If you can make a conclusion that men are being feminized by drugs in our waters and plastics, that's good enough to prove the conclusion, which is we as a society should be mad, not celebrating it.

So are you fucking kidding?  I show that F-M is actually M-impotent, erecticle disfunction M -

NOT anything close to the illusionary F-M that you based your argument on, and you want to continue the argument by interjecting various other kinds of surgery?  That's crazy.  Much plastic surgery is done to enable a person to be (in their own mind) more attractive to those whom they want to be attracted to, period.  It doesn't even have anything to do with your hypothetical, made up concepts of "gender-identity."

And what in the world is this about disregarding the possibility of damaged orgasmic response as a clear danger of surgery outcomes?  that's crazy talk.  Of course it should be considered, just like the risk of death from surgery should be considered. 

Your other argument, regarding drugs in the water supply and all that, is a separate and unrelated one.

I don't agree with this argument either, at all, but I believe at least you could make an argument on it.

He's saying that it has shifted to roughly 50-50, which I assume means there are still more male to female surgeries, since that's what is used to be, and we agree it's more dangerous for F-to-M.

"For example, consider quality and very capability for orgasm pre and post surgery.  I would imagine that would be a major consideration...."

Why should that be a major consideration? They feel they are male trapped in a woman's body, they want to have a penis, this is correct, right?

Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male)

"Many trans men considering the option do not opt for genital reassignment surgery; more frequent surgical options include bilateral mastectomy (removal of the breasts) and chest contouring (providing a more typically male chest shape), and hysterectomy (the removal of internal sex organs)...."Some trans men desire to have a hysterectomy/BSO because of a discomfort with having internal female reproductive organs despite the fact that menses usually cease with hormonal therapy. Some undergo this as their only gender-identity confirming 'bottom surgery'. In other cases, sterilization may be required by the state in order for the sex marker on official documents to be changed."

You can see in this quote that they usually take out the female sex organs. I believe that the quote that is roughly 50-50 is probably discussing women who have mastectomies to become more male-like, and may not be including those who actually go through with the whole reassignment, which still shows that my premise is true.

However, it's not the only premise. We're also being drugged with things that have been shown to cause male animals to have babies and cause them to become feminized. Are you going to try to debunk those too?

Yes, we can ignore your premise.  You may have some idealized notion of M-F and F-M as "perfect changes" but they are not.  They both have specific risks and those risks differ.  If there was a 20% chance sex would be worse after the surgery would you do it?  What if the chance was 50%?

For example, consider quality and very capability for orgasm pre and post surgery.  I would imagine that would be a major consideration....

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2351/can-transsexuals-have-orgasm-after-sex-reassignment-surgery

F-to-M surgery is less common, more expensive, and, according to the literature, less successful, from both functional and aesthetic points of view. Since 1969, Dr. Biber has performed about 4,000 M-to-F operations but only about 400 to 500 F-to-M ones. He says, however, that with advances in technique in recent years the ratio has shifted to roughly 50-50. Answer to obvious question number one: no, you can't get an erection in the usual sense, but you can be provided with a prosthesis to permit intercourse.....

So a F-M post op is more similar to a M with ED than anything else....

If the only reason women are not getting sex change operations are because of:

1) More costs, it's more expensive
2) More dangerous
3) It's more acceptable for women to act like men
4) It's more acceptable for women to be homosexual than men

Then, we can't ignore my premise.....

You have a premise here, that there should be equal numbers of surgical operations for men to women and women to men.  This premise is flawed.  They are different operations, with difference costs, success rates, and consequences.  There are also different social perceptions of men acting like women, and women acting like men.  Finally, there are differing perceptions of male vs female homosexual activities.  As one example, there is a common idea that lesbian sex is "hot," while male to male sex is not. 

So there is nothing here as a premise to base your hypothesis upon.

Society is currently rejoicing that men are becoming females, because they're able to be the gender they feel like they should be. The rate of men becoming women physically through surgery, seems higher than the other way around, for women becoming men. If this is wrong, please post the statistics, and I'll edit. We don't usually hear of women becoming men surgically. There may be tomboys (girl who exhibits characteristics or behaviors considered typical of a boy) out there, but I don't know of any actually having surgery.

This seems unusual, scientifically. If the only reason men are becoming females (through pills/surgery) these days is due to society being more accepting, then why aren't more females becoming males in the same way? Why is it lopsided?

A hypothesis: The change is not due to society becoming more accepting, it's due to men becoming more feminized and them pushing for more acceptance, because the majority of them are less masculine now......

Men are unknowingly allowing themselves to become emasculated, through professional sports, video games, food, the media...hell, even beer increases estrogen production. My old roommate stopped-by the other day - he is one of those beta-hipster types - he moved-in with his gf and in just the past month since I've seen him sprouted moobs...he drinks A LOT of beer and his gf is a vegetarian so he eats a lot of soy, gets no exercise whatsoever and spends his free-time playing X-Box for hours at a time - I can't even imagine what his test levels are.

http://www.truthin7minutes.com/hidden-side-effects-beer/

Today, more than 99% of all beers list Hops as an ingredient. Just 100 grams of Hops (about 3.5 ounces) contains anywhere from 30,000 to 300,000 IUs of estrogen (depending on the type of Hops)…

… Up until the year 1516, beer didn’t have Hops in it at all. That’s when the Reinheitsgebot (or Beer Purity Act of 1516) required Hops to replace medicinal herbs found in beers. The penalty for making impure beer was confiscation without compensation…

… Before the act was enacted, beer was commonly used to carry medicine throughout the body. In fact, more than one hundred different plants were used in brewing beer including everything from dandelion stems to burdock root. These herbs (especially in beer) are sexually and mentally stimulating. (It’s rare to become sleepy when drinking un-hopped beers.) People literally went to an Ale House to cure their ails. Interestingly, this was the first drug law ever enacted.

People claim drinking beer without Hops prevents the dreaded hangovers, too.

It’s interesting that some say a boost in estrogen is good for us… but my investigation shows the opposite:

According to the US National Library of Medicine, Hops have been shown to contain one of the most potent in vitro (i.e. test tube) estrogenic substances known from the plant kingdom.

Estrogen steals oxygen from mitochondria (our body’s “cellular power plants”). Not good.

Estrogen interferes with glucose oxidation. In simple speak, our bodies don’t get the energy we need… so we’re tired. In fact Germany’s Commission E authorizes the use of Hops for “discomfort due to restlessness or anxiety and sleep disturbances.”

But that’s just the beginning of the problems with Hops and estrogen …

… There’s strong epidemiological evidence to show estrogen contributes to the formation of breast, endometrial and uterine cancers. In fact, women who begin menstruating early (or who start menopause late) produce more estrogen over their lifetimes and have a higher risk of breast cancer.

Ironically, Hops is sometimes marketed as a breast enhancement product… as a sedative and relaxant… and even a hormone to improve fertility (even though before the 1940s, doctors routinely warned patients about estrogen because it caused infertility).

Today, the majority of physicians and men overlook its potent chemicals. They don’t realize that beer itself can significantly alter the male androgen levels – affecting the development of male secondary sex characteristics.

German beer makers observed that young women farmhands who picked Hops in fields would often fall asleep on the job, and would begin menstruation much earlier than similarly-aged young women not working in a Hops’ field.

Hops is classified as an anaphradesiacal herb. It lessens sexual desire. In fact, the state of male penal flaccidity from the mass consumption of beer is knowns as Brewer’s Droop. (No wonder Viagra is so popular nowadays.)

So how do we enjoy beer that’s free of Hops? Look for traditional gruits (typically found in microbreweries and brew pubs).

It’s also best to buy beers that are bottle-conditioned. Bottle-conditioned beers are carbonated in the bottle and contain live yeasts. These yeasts (most commonly Saccharomyces cerevisiae) are highly nutritive. They are extremely high in protein, glucose tolerance factor, and B vitamins – especially niacin and B1. It helps regulate blood sugar levels (thereby eliminating many of the problems associated with diabetes).

Its interesting to see men becoming less so and always wondered how they would achieve this. Media constantly stating men are no longer relevant in todays world.

Read a good book on mens status in the world and be damned if I can recall it. Will see if I can find it,took it out of the library so there should be a history.

Watch this first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAEEDluI_s0


RT's Monsanto coverage featured on the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwpJYJY9DE

inject testosterone, problem solved