New Call of Duty game let's players be Non-binary

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well, you could argue that with women a suicide attempt is a cry for help while with men the intent is really death.

Exactly.

The point is that a person who attempts suicide without strong suicidal intent is less likely to reach the point of strong suicidal intent. Thus, the most likely explanation is that women's greater tendency towards suicidal behaviour actually protects them to a degree from suicidal mortality. It's not that men are more suicidal than women, in fact it is the reverse, but rather that men who do manage to reach the point of becoming suicidal tend to be at a much more severe stage in whatever psychopathology has driven them to suicide.

That so many men commit way more suicide than women can also be considered that the depth of their despair is much more profound

Despair is not really an adequate description. There are some very fundamental psychological inhibitions that prevent a human being from killing themselves, and overcoming those inhibitions requires a very abnormal state of mind, typically a very short lived abnormal state of mind. Hence, Gethesemani's point about delaying someone for 15 minutes. Again, we shouldn't treat suicide as the logical end point of a hard life, but rather as something requiring exceptional psychological conditions.

You could argue about the reasons all day long but in general men are seen as much more disposable. In wars, during calamities(women and children first), with dangerous or hazardous occupations.

Does anyone actually think that men are more disposable than women?

Let's imagine two men. John is an Astronaut. He has a highly prestigious degree in engineering, and worked for several years as an engineer before applying for astronaut program. He had to pass demanding physical fitness screenings and psychological tests to be selected for astronaut training. Like all modern astronauts, he had to learn Russian. He has been given thousands of hours of training and technical instruction.

Jim is a man with severe and debilitating autism. He cannot live independently and requires round the clock care, necessitating that he live in a care home. He is not allowed to cook for himself or leave the home of his own volition. He cannot work, or earn a living for himself. Occasionally, he is allowed to take the bus on his own in order to take part in therapeutic and social activities provided by a various charities.

Now, under the logic of male disposability, we would look at these two men and conclude that Jim represents the privileged class. After all, John's job is literally to strap himself onto a giant explosive in order to visit an environment that is so inhospitable to human life a few seconds of exposure to it would kill him. How terrible! John must be so miserable to live such an oppressed life! Meanwhile, Jim has an entire group of people whose only task is to ensure his wellbeing and protect him from harm. He must be supremely important and privileged, not to mention happy.

Do you see the problem?

There is a general social climate where men can't admit to being vulnerable.

Why do you think that is?

What does a man have to lose by admitting vulnerability?

Not just that but also way more men(espescially young men) are incarcerated than women, with another vulnerability being their biology(ie hormones) that lead to disinhibited impulse control and poor restraint.

Again, noone actually knows what effect sex hormones have on our thought processes.

Historically, it was women who were believed to have poor impulse control or restraint, which was the justification for keeping women away from positions of power and influence. We still have holdovers of those beliefs today. Sally Ride, the first American woman to become an astronaut, was asked in a press conference if she ever cried during flight simulator tests. John would never be asked that question, would he? We know he doesn't break down and cry when things get difficult..

Both social and biological factors put men at much higher risk for both delinquent behavior and self-harm.

They're not though.

Women are at far higher risk of self-harm than men.

 

[stroopwafel]

You could argue this, but it'd be wrong. In terms of suicide attempts the amount of para-suicidal behavior (suicidal behavior without apparent intent of success) is quite low and almost entirely found in people with personality disorders, BPD in particular. The vast majority of people that attempt suicide do so because they intend to end their lives. The difference in mens and womens success rate (which is a morbid thing to write) is that men generally pick more aggressive ways of suicide, hanging, jumping in front of trains etc., while women tend to pick more passive ways of suicide, chiefly intoxication.

The above needs two addendums to make sense:
1. Most suicide attempts can be prevented by delaying them 15 minutes. We're talking something like 90-95% of suicide attempts can be aborted just by delaying the actual attempt. Almost all suicide attempts are attempted either during anxiety attacks or when the person is intoxicated (often both) and the burst of anxiety that triggers suicidal intent dissipates quick. It doesn't matter if you can't find the rope, get caught in triple red lights when driving to the railroad tracks or a Pizza delivery guy knocks on your door because they have the wrong address, that slight delay is often all it takes for the suicidal intent to die down. This is the reason why first responders and emergency number operators always insist on the suicidal person to keep talking, because the longer they talk to me the less the chance that they'll suddenly "work up courage" and attempt suicide. More importantly, this is where the difference in suicide method comes into play. As Thaluikhain points out, guns are disastrous in this case, because it is really easy to load one and pull the trigger. Hanging, slicing open arteries or jumping off high objects are similarly bad because you never get to the point where you get second thoughts, and men love to use these methods. Women are equally intent when they start downing pills by the handful, but by the time you've swallowed a hundred or more you've spent a fair few minutes doing so and then you've got another 30-60 minutes before they take effect. That's enough time for the suicidal intent to dissipate and call for help.

2. The human body is amazingly resilient and people don't know much about medication. The most used medication to "overdose" on in order to commit suicide is sleeping pills. Back before Benzodiazepines were introduced, it was a reliable way to get yourself killed, but in the modern day it is almost impossible to take enough bzo to cause breathing depravation (anecdotal: The usual treatment dose of oxazepam is 5-15mg but you can administer at least 400mgs without any serious concern, compare that to paracetamol with a treatment dose of 1g and a toxic floor as low as 4g). People who intend to overdose on meds simply don't know what will cause the most damage and even if they do, a lot of it can be counteracted if you get treatment in time. I've spoken to a lot of patients who were certain they had just killed themselves, fell asleep and woke up two days later feeling like total shit but without a need for emergency medical treatment.

The act of committing suicide might indeed be impulsive but actually getting to that stage takes years. Someone doesn't just decide to impulsively jump in front of a train one day. A long process preceded that. You also don't elaborate why men 'love' the methods you describe and why women prefer popping pills when it's common knowledge that is a really unreliable method. You don't want to admit that there is a difference between a half-hearted suicide attempt as a cry for help and actually, decisively wanting to die. I have yet to hear a sound explanation why men in particular are in such a mindset that they prefer these 'succcesful' methods, which I tried to address in my previous post.

This line of reasoning would suggest that men would perform more suicide attempts then women, not less. We should also note that self-harm has historically been the purvey of women, with young men only recently showing a sad and massive increase in self harm behaviors.

You are not entirely wrong in assuming there are social issues for men. However, research bears out that the most important preventive factor against suicide attempts is a good connection to family and the second most important one being a strong social network. Simply put: Men are not good at forming strong social connections and even when they do they are terrible at talking about hard issues like feelings, set backs and guilt. What research time and time again finds is that men who learn how to talk about their emotions and their problems also suffer less relapse into suicidal intent then men who don't.

With self-harm I meant more reckless and irresponsible behavior to the detriment of the one committing it rather than something like automutilation. You can also argue about to what extent men are predisposed towards certain behaviors and attitudes and how much it's culturally or socially conditioned. Certain aspects like poor impulse control, lack of self-restraint, status-seeking and not wanting to appear vulnerable might have had evolutionary advantages at one point so they are hard to shake. This is also why particularly young men are at risk for these behaviors. It would require a really good therapist for them to open up which are sadly in low supply. By the same token the feeling of (social) defeat might also be more profound and hence the depth of despair and preference for suicide method. I think it's really a combination of socioeconomic demands, individual expectations and behavioral predispositions that puts men at higher risk for suicide. Men, perhaps more than women, are only valued for their accomplishments. This is ofcourse in comparison to others, so there isn't really a difference in suicide rates between harsh meritocratic societies and more egalitarian ones. Where there are people there is inequality.

 

[stroopwafel]

Do you see the problem?

Eh..no? You want to argue men wanted to die in wars, do dangerous or hazardous work or wanted to drown so women and children he didn't even know could live? And even if that is true, then where does that sense of altruism or self-sacrifice comes from? Is it an evolutionary trait or socially conditioned? Those are the interesting questions.

Why do you think that is?

What does a man have to lose by admitting vulnerability?

Like I said, not wanting to appear weak is such a universal trait among men that there is a multitude of reasons.

Again, noone actually knows what effect sex hormones have on our thought processes.

Historically, it was women who were believed to have poor impulse control or restraint, which was the justification for keeping women away from positions of power and influence. We still have holdovers of those beliefs today. Sally Ride, the first American woman to become an astronaut, was asked in a press conference if she ever cried during flight simulator tests. John would never be asked that question, would he? We know he doesn't break down and cry when things get difficult..

I think you conflate poor impulse control with a predilection for being more emotional. Poor impulse control is like a tendency for violent behavior, reckless driving or not respecting someone's boundaries in a sexual manner while emotional is more not being being able to stop yourself from crying, getting upset or breaking down etc. You know, those things that aren't typically seen as 'manly'.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Just to showcase a point discussed earlier. Here is a trans woman upset that the UK is saying that you are not allowed to receive hormone blockers or physically envoke your transition while under the age of 18. AKA you cannot transition KIDS!


Seems like a rational thing to ban. You can't drink alcohol until 21 but fucking up your body hormonally at an age where your hormones are trying to get your fucking body together correctly in the first place....yeah that should be fine.

Explain to this to me.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Terminal Blue]

Eh..no? You want to argue men wanted to die in wars, do dangerous or hazardous work or wanted to drown so women and children he didn't even know could live?

For every soldier who died in world war two, four civilians were killed. They died to strategic bombing, organised war crimes, famine and disease (much of it caused by widespread food confiscation) and numerous other factors. During the German invasion of the Soviet Union, entire villages were wiped from the map. Their female inhabitants were typically raped and then immediately killed. There were similar scenes during the Soviet "liberation" of eastern Europe, and of course the atrocities carried out against the German population itself at the war's conclusion. In China, Japanese military gains were accompanied by similar campaigns of mass organised rape followed by murder. The myth that men join the army out of some sense of gallant obligation to protect women from death or hardship does not in any way begin to explain the existential threat or unbelievable hostility which soldiers typically pose to civilian women.

Men do not fight in wars to protect women, they fight in wars out of a sense of patriotism, or to assert their masculine honour, or to experience adventure. They fight in wars because being the kind of person who fights in wars affirms their superior worth as men, as opposed to women, who are simply part of the territory on which wars are fought.

Men who complain about men dying in wars or doing dangerous work, as if that's ever a thing they will be expected to do, are very seldom doing so with the intent of suggesting that women should be encouraged into or accommodated within the military or within other dangerous professions. The intention is always to assert that the social privileges men enjoy are right and natural because they have been earned through sacrifice.

You don't sacrifice something disposable, that's not a sacrifice.

 

[Buyetyen]

Does anyone actually think that men are more disposable than women?

My experience has been that the only men who think they're disposable are pretty mediocre and insecure to begin with. In other words, there is no anti-male conspiracy. Some dudes are just assholes.

 

[Houseman]

The reason why men were brought up, is in relation to defining a pathology. Men had, a higher chance of committing suicide, so the question was posed: Is being male pathological?

I denied this, saying that the mere presence of an increased chance is not proof of such a thing. A 41% chance, however, is very different than a %50 increase (not 50 percentage points increase!) of an already small number.

Just reminding everybody.

My experience has been that the only men who think they're disposable are pretty mediocre and insecure to begin with. In other words, there is no anti-male conspiracy. Some dudes are just assholes.

Hear that slaves in the 1800s? You're not disposable, you're just mediocre and insecure! Stop being such jerks!

 

[Buyetyen]

Hear that slaves in the 1800s? You're not disposable, you're just mediocre and insecure! Stop being such jerks!

That's a lovely strawman, but could you put it back out in the pasture where it belongs?

 

[Houseman]

That's a lovely strawman, but could you put it back out in the pasture where it belongs?

Sure, and I'll bring along the notion that "nobody is truly treated as disposable" too.

 

[Breakdown]

Men do not fight in wars to protect women, they fight in wars out of a sense of patriotism, or to assert their masculine honour, or to experience adventure. They fight in wars because being the kind of person who fights in wars affirms their superior worth as men, as opposed to women, who are simply part of the territory on which wars are fought.

Men generally fight in wars because of conscription.

 

[Buyetyen]

Sure, and I'll bring along the notion that "nobody is truly treated as disposable" too.

Oh good, you'll bring another straw man to keep him company. That"s uncharacteristically thoughtful of you. Good job.

 

[Buyetyen]

Men generally fight in wars because of conscription.

So how many dudes were drafted in the last 30 years?

 

[Iron]

So how many dudes were drafted in the last 30 years?

I was drafted

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Just to showcase a point discussed earlier. Here is a trans woman upset that the UK is saying that you are not allowed to receive hormone blockers or physically envoke your transition while under the age of 18. AKA you cannot transition KIDS!


Seems like a rational thing to ban. You can't drink alcohol until 21 but fucking up your body hormonally at an age where your hormones are trying to get your fucking body together correctly in the first place....yeah that should be fine.

Explain to this to me.

Read the rest of her fucking thread, it's plenty of explanation.
We've been using puberty blockers for over 30 goddamn years. They're fully reversible.

EDIT: Like, what's the actual plan here, man? Take the context of out anything that says "trans-medical treatment" and hope that people start assuming there's a movement to put hundreds of kids under the knife?

 

[Breakdown]

So how many dudes were drafted in the last 30 years?

The post I quoted referred to the Second World War. If you're talking the last 30 years though, you think men haven't been compelled to fight in the Middle East, Africa and God knows where else?

 

[Buyetyen]

The post I quoted referred to the Second World War. If you're talking the last 30 years though, you think men haven't been compelled to fight in the Middle East, Africa and God knows where else?

Society doesn't view you as expendable because you're a man. It views you as expendable because capitalism.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Read the rest of her fucking thread, it's plenty of explanation.
We've been using puberty blockers for over 30 goddamn years. They're fully reversible.

EDIT: Like, what's the actual plan here, man? Take the context of out anything that says "trans-medical treatment" and hope that people start assuming there's a movement to put hundreds of kids under the knife?

The point is that no kid should go under the knife. Transitioning as an adult takes (last i checked) over a year of therapy, counseling and then extra time on top of that living as your proclaimed gender to make sure you are all in on the concept.

Kids change their fucking minds constantly, even college age students come out of college completely different people than when they went in. Interests change, desires change, and at a young age those things change fucking rapidly. Especially high school age.

Laura's argument that hormones therapy needs to begin young in order to prevent the body from doing the natural puberty alterations is insanity. Fucking insane, because the implications could reach far younger than 16. There are other people who talk about forcing puberty blockers on their kids to prevent irreversible puberty before the child can fully decide which way they want to go, which alone is insanely harmful to long term development both physical and mental.

This is flat out crazy talk.

Transgenderism and transitition should only ONLY be done once a person is a fully formed Adult and has the mental gravity to understand the long term consequences of such a thing. That is an opinion I will never cross because there is no single reason you could ever tell me that would lead me to think that a child can possibly have the mental development to make that kind of life changing call.