[Q&A] Questions you want answered (D&D Edition)

Reviving for the new D&D:
-ask or answer questions better suited for D&D than EE
-not intended as a debate thread; if people want to debate a particular issue feel free to create a new thread for it.

I can see where the question comes from though. If you've spent years trying to reclaim manliness from those promoting toxic masculinity, it can be challanging to see a younger generation want to do away with masculine/feminine division entirely. It could even feel as ungrateful, because they're basically saying all the work you did was wasted.

A better way to look at it is that it's the next step. Because after all the work you did to remove the toxic parts, the things that are left to be considered masculine aren't actually exclusive to masculinity. If the traits aren't exclusive, then there's no real purpose to the division, other than reinforcing gender sterotypes, and if you're the type of person that doesn't like toxic masculinity, you're probably also the type of person who doesn't like gender stereotypes.

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

100%

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

The idea that "masculinity is toxic" is mis-framing the idea I think.

To re-phrase what Meebs said higher up.

Go back 20 years or more, and the idea of masculine and feminine traits was clearly defined. Men were expected to present masculine traits and women feminine traits. And heaven help you if you decided to cross the boundary.

Now? Now we have a much better idea of gender and how people express their gender. It is not a simple binary, rather it is a trend (to overly simplify things, possibly a triangle??). And with the re-examination of gender, there now requires a re-examination of what the ideal traits of each gender are (again, simplifying things greatly). Another question that should be asked is whether it is necessary to have said traits, or is it good enough to have "these are the traits of a good person"?

mudbunny wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

The idea that "masculinity is toxic" is mis-framing the idea I think.

Agreed, but that’s not at all what I said.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

The idea that "masculinity is toxic" is mis-framing the idea I think.

Agreed, but that’s not at all what I said.

Ahh. I completely misunderstood what you said then.

I apologize.

Yeah, I don't think there's anything necessarily toxic about trying to define masculinity for yourself (that depends on how you end up defining it), but trying to apply or enforce your definition on anyone else certainly is.

mudbunny wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I wonder if that makes toxic masculinity the idea that there _is_ some defined set of traits that is both strictly masculine and required to present as “manly”. It then less of masculinity vs toxic masculinity and more of “trying to define - and enforce - masculinity is, itself, toxic”.

The idea that "masculinity is toxic" is mis-framing the idea I think.

Agreed, but that’s not at all what I said.

Ahh. I completely misunderstood what you said then.

I apologize.

All good, man.
*respek_knuckles.gif*

So a thought I had while reading about Trump’s ongoing tax evasion trial - why don’t more prosecutors use civil forfeiture for white collar crimes? Trump would then have to prove his innocence to get the money back and New York could tie the case up for years. Not that I support those laws but if they exist might as well use them.

My understanding is that they have to be physical assets, like a literal pile of cash or a car, that they can seize and hold. But I could be wrong on that.

Do naughty children in West Virginia get solar panels in their stockings?

Expired epi-pens.

Is using the phrase "X is my spirit animal" (Adam Scott in my case) offensive e cultural appropriation that should be stopped and called out, or is that over the top?

Mixolyde wrote:

Is using the phrase "X is my spirit animal" (Adam Scott in my case) offensive e cultural appropriation that should be stopped and called out, or is that over the top?

It's on the low end of the offensive spectrum but yes.

If you have any Norse ancestry (and chances are good you do if you’re Western European), you can always say “ fylgja” which is almost the same thing. Aka an animal that inspires you but isn’t a religious figure per se.

Does anyone have a statistic on what percentage of trans people are trans because of a genetic or medical condition? i know you could argue that everything is based on genetics, but i'm looking for syndromes like hyperaldosteronism or klinefelter's syndrome for example.

When trying to argue that there are quantitative medical things that can cause gender dysmorphia, my conservative relative brushed it aside as though it does not account for a significant enough amount. While a lot of these conditions are fairly low in the general population, i imagine that they are much more pronounced in the trans community.

FiveIron wrote:

Does anyone have a statistic on what percentage of trans people are trans because of a genetic or medical condition?

Plenty.

Gender dysphoria is in the DSM-5 - it's a medical condition. Not all trans folks suffer from it, but many do.

My son absorbed his twin in the womb. We joke that his transition has been his twin taking over, because that's not based on any sort of evidence. I still wonder if that's how our sparkly boy got some of his wiring though. What he has been through is deeply physical though, without a doubt. Who he is hasn't changed, but the player now matches his piano... and holy sh*t can he carry a tune.

FiveIron wrote:

Does anyone have a statistic on what percentage of trans people are trans because of a genetic or medical condition? i know you could argue that everything is based on genetics, but i'm looking for syndromes like hyperaldosteronism or klinefelter's syndrome for example.

When trying to argue that there are quantitative medical things that can cause gender dysmorphia, my conservative relative brushed it aside as though it does not account for a significant enough amount. While a lot of these conditions are fairly low in the general population, i imagine that they are much more pronounced in the trans community.

Dysmorphia is a symptom. Plenty of people who are not trans have HEAPS of dysmorphia. We live in a society with oversimplified standards for how we should all identify and behave, and some dysmorphia can be triggered by shame or embarrassment, or a physical aversion to parts of their bodies. Some trans folks may have it, and though common it's not universal. Neither is dysphoria, which is much more common. This article is from a eating disorder site, however details the concepts here pretty well.

Even with good intentions, I would be wary of trying to go into genetics and predetermination. I think it would be good to be aware that gender essentialist terfs like to throw around biological pseudoscience, so it might be good to make sure you don't inadvertently use one of their talking points, as well as be aware of those tactics if this relative tries to use them on you.

By arguing about medical genetics with them, you are just playing into their idea that someone needs to prove they 'deserve' to be what they are, or that your relative is in a position to judge and approve of other people.

FiveIron wrote:

When trying to argue that there are quantitative medical things that can cause gender dysmorphia, my conservative relative brushed it aside as though it does not account for a significant enough amount. While a lot of these conditions are fairly low in the general population, i imagine that they are much more pronounced in the trans community.

Providing someone with data that 'proves' something is unlikely to change the mind of someone who's already brushed that group aside as insignificant to their lives.

LeapingGnome wrote:

By arguing about medical genetics with them, you are just playing into their idea that someone needs to prove they 'deserve' to be what they are, or that your relative is in a position to judge and approve of other people.

i think you're reading into it too much. by saying that there are people who have a quantifiable medical condition that prompts X, does not mean that X can also not be caused by other environmental factors or non-quantifiable medical conditions.
I think the point of my argument with this relative is that there is undeniable proof that factors can lead to someone being uncomfortable with their birth certificate gender. The argument of it's also okay if people just want to be a different gender for some intangible reason would be harder to convince them of considering their background.

It would require a complete lack of senses to ignore the fact that people embody their genders in far different ways regardless of how they identify. Folks who can get on board with a very feminine man or a very masculine woman, can be totally fine with cosmetic surgery, would consider it rude to question what's in someone's pants or what happens in their bedroom, but suddenly have major problems when a label changes are making it all about themselves. It has nothing to do with real people living the only life they'll have in a real, diverse world. It's about thinking of certain people as yucky without knowing anything else about them. It's fear of what they don't understand while being too cowardly to understand it.

FiveIron wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

By arguing about medical genetics with them, you are just playing into their idea that someone needs to prove they 'deserve' to be what they are, or that your relative is in a position to judge and approve of other people.

i think you're reading into it too much. by saying that there are people who have a quantifiable medical condition that prompts X, does not mean that X can also not be caused by other environmental factors or non-quantifiable medical conditions.
I think the point of my argument with this relative is that there is undeniable proof that factors can lead to someone being uncomfortable with their birth certificate gender. The argument of it's also okay if people just want to be a different gender for some intangible reason would be harder to convince them of considering their background.

In think LeapingGnome has the right of it here. Let’s imagine you show statistics to your relative that 60% of trans people feel that way due to a distinct genetic signature. Then what? What’s the upside? They graciously grant that some people should be allowed to transition if they have the appropriate medical proof? That sounds like the best case scenario, where what has happened is they now have more arrows in their quiver of “trans people are <insert whatever negative is appropriate here>”. From the sounds if it, a much more likely reaction is the introduction of the next gate to keep and the next goalpost shift.

If “[t]he argument of it's also okay if people just want to be a different gender for some intangible reason would be harder to convince them of considering their background” is already a sticking point, the discussion with your relative is pointless. They have made up their mind; “facts” aren’t going to enter into it.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
FiveIron wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

By arguing about medical genetics with them, you are just playing into their idea that someone needs to prove they 'deserve' to be what they are, or that your relative is in a position to judge and approve of other people.

i think you're reading into it too much. by saying that there are people who have a quantifiable medical condition that prompts X, does not mean that X can also not be caused by other environmental factors or non-quantifiable medical conditions.
I think the point of my argument with this relative is that there is undeniable proof that factors can lead to someone being uncomfortable with their birth certificate gender. The argument of it's also okay if people just want to be a different gender for some intangible reason would be harder to convince them of considering their background.

In think LeapingGnome has the right of it here. Let’s imagine you show statistics to your relative that 60% of trans people feel that way due to a distinct genetic signature. Then what? What’s the upside? They graciously grant that some people should be allowed to transition if they have the appropriate medical proof?

It's not ideal, but yeah i would say granting grace to 60% of people is better than 0. when talking across the aisle you have to find some common ground that you can work with then work on the rest of it the next time you can. maybe it sounds like I'm compromising with bigotry and should just take a hardline stance with my relatives, but I think i just have a different expectation from living with and trying to persuade certain people to give up even an inch of bigotry.

This will expand the scope of the discussion, but I think this ties into it as well. I'm a materialist, meaning i don't believe in free will and I don't believe anyone chooses their gender identity or their orientation. As we find more genetics and environmental conditions that influence people's preferences, that 60% might grow to 90% and at some point it's just easier to assume people are the way they are for some reason outside their control. Taking free will out of the equation probably makes a lot of people feel like you're taking the humanity out of the equation, but it also takes away the judgment.

I get where you’re coming from, and I fully believe you’re operating in good faith. It’s rarely an argument in good faith in the other side. In the end, you know your relative better than we do; I hope whatever follows leads to more acceptance.

I have two quick questions about abortion. First, is there any way to make it illegal federally without a constitutional amendment or would it be rather easy to pass a nationwide ban with just a slight majority? The reason I’m asking is the Roe overturn seems to have made it a states rights issue which I thought would require an amendment to change.

Secondly, how would states legally bar their citizens from going to other states for abortions? I can’t think of any other situation where you can be arrested for doing something that’s legal in another state even if it’s illegal back home. For example, I don’t think the Kentucky state police can arrest my cousins if they smoked pot with me during their upcoming Seattle visit.

My understanding:
Roe only protected abortion rights through case precedent. There was never a federal law passed. Therefore SCOTUS can overturn through the same method they upheld it in 1973.

I believe the Texas law allows lawsuits (aka bounties) by any party against TX citizens whom they suspect to have had abortions, regardless of where they occur.

ETA: Bernie says Congress must codify Roe v. Wade “NOW”

Missouri is an example of how to stop out of state abortions. Spoiler alert, they’re using the Texas bounty hunter scheme.

jdzappa wrote:

First, is there any way to make it illegal federally without a constitutional amendment or would it be rather easy to pass a nationwide ban with just a slight majority?

Any law to make abortion legal or illegal at the federal level can be done but would be challenged on federalism grounds. In other words, does the federal government have the right to dictate this to the states? This supreme court would likely overturn any federal law making abortion legal.

jdzappa wrote:

The reason I’m asking is the Roe overturn seems to have made it a states rights issue which I thought would require an amendment to change.

What the supreme court giveth, the supreme court taketh away. During hearings, when they said it was settled law, they didn't really mean it.

jdzappa wrote:

Secondly, how would states legally bar their citizens from going to other states for abortions? I can’t think of any other situation where you can be arrested for doing something that’s legal in another state even if it’s illegal back home. For example, I don’t think the Kentucky state police can arrest my cousins if they smoked pot with me during their upcoming Seattle visit.

It should not be possible under our constitution, but again it'll be up to SCOTUS because we're in hell.