Spreading deadly pathogens under the disguise of popular music
arxiv.org
arxiv.org
another example is the Pegasus spyware, which surreptitiously assembled a Turing machine out of PDF decompression logic in iMessage. or the Thing, an old Soviet bug with no electronics, just passive bits of metal that reflect and modulate an RF beam.
there's probably many more examples of clever tricks that stayed secret, and are forgotten to time.
This also raises the question of whether existing, unaltered, popular music might be might be usable in such an attack.
It also makes me wonder where else DPS are used as a crucial security component.
Say if someone has a radio on inside an NPR 24/7/365?
https://current.org/2013/07/donated-cars-bring-big-bucks-to-... (2013)
Compiler developers
Is it a “contagion”? Well, fast food is yummy and being lazy is easier than being active and fit. So there’s a significant pull if you’re exposed to it a lot.
As an example; a single frozen pizza that I enjoy the flavor of is only carried in one size. A size reasonable for two adults to split as a large meal, which could be split further to a 'nuclear family' with some sides. Instead I'll gorge on it as my only meal of the day because that's the most effective way for me to maximize the value of that 'best market fit' product (I really detest leftovers).
It's the amount you take in vs the amount you expend. Putting it on your plate doesnt mean you must eat it. I went from morbidly obese to showing abs during covid and while doing almost 0 activity just by watching how the weight of what i ate affected the weight on the scale.
McDonalds and Kroger can serve me flintstone's size portions and I'll still be fit because I know that for my daily expenditure I need a certain amount. If I know I'll be expending more, i'll consume more. Am I hungry? Absolutely! But you are free to make the choice to eat when idle, or do other more productive things. Hunger doesn't mean starving and it's hard to train your brain to understand 'no'.
Not sure whether I agree this is a real phenomenon, but I understand the argument.
Whereas the prevalence in text from antiquity of "men disguising themselves as women" should perhaps give people pause as to why this concept was out there in fiction despite being centuries removed from surgical transitioning being possible
Because subtext is dead: because gender dysmorphia isn't new, and it was probably quite common for people to do this "as a joke" as a means of spending time in an identity that they found satisfying, to various levels of acceptance of the community around them. Thus writers and audiences of the time knew of the phenomenon and used it as a plot point - people tend to write what they know. The era of "no women on stage" very likely found a reliable source of men willing to play female characters and doing a very good job of it - otherwise it would've been a bit of a scripting and production problem as well.
So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to allow for a non-binary reality where a person is better off not transitioning, even if they experience feelings of transgenderism.
Without assigning value judgement to the transgender as a norm/not a norm/social construct/we, you cannot dismiss parent's argument this way. Parent is not claiming 'gays exist only as function of emulating other's behavior'. Parent is claiming there is a social factor that is influencing a younger person to claim being transgender.
It is hard to easily dismiss it, because kids do in fact attempt to emulate authority figures ( parents ) and peers ( friends ).
Imagine someone who wants to try soccer but hangs out with baseball players, versus someone who wants to try soccer and hangs out with soccer players. Who would you suspect has a higher chance of joining a soccer team?
> All this is possibly fine if it weren’t for the fact that it’s self destructive and encourages self mutilation.
If you genuinely care about the well-being of children, you should know that the acceptance and support of their identities results in drastically reducing the risk of suicide and mental illness[1]. The science shows that children who are supported in their identities have the same rates of suicide and mental illness as non-trans children:
> Socially transitioned transgender children who are supported in their gender identity have developmentally normative levels of depression and only minimal elevations in anxiety, suggesting that psychopathology is not inevitable within this group. Especially striking is the comparison with reports of children with GID; socially transitioned transgender children have notably lower rates of internalizing psychopathology than previously reported among children with GID living as their natal sex.
The theory being that a non-zero number of kids seeking to transition are doing it for reasons they don’t fully understand, and helping them get to the root of their trauma may uncover something which steers them away from identifying as transgender.
Only because I have heard of people regretting their transition.
It's worth noting that every major medical association in the United States has come out in favor of affirming a youth's sexual orientation and gender identity and against the practice of conversion therapy. This list includes:
> American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; American Academy of Nursing; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy; American College of Physicians; American Counseling Association; American Medical Association; American Osteopathic Association; American Psychiatric Association; American Psychoanalytic Association; American Psychological Association; National Association of Social Workers.
I think it's wrong to assume a person has a misguided view about their own gender (the position of conversion therapists), but I also think it's wrong to assume they don't (the position of GAT). In order to understand a person's ability to judge their own gender (especially an impressionable teenager who does not have all of their mental faculties fully developed), we have to understand any other factors which may have an effect on their feelings.
This is not advocating for them to remain their gender at birth, nor is it advocating for them to "be what they feel." It's about understanding why they feel the way they do, and helping them recognize any trauma which may impact their feelings one way or the other.
I recognize this is a high bar for therapists because even well meaning people like yourself can't seem to grasp the nuance.
> but I also think it's wrong to assume they don't (the position of GAT). In order to understand a person's ability to judge their own gender (especially an impressionable teenager who does not have all of their mental faculties fully developed), we have to understand any other factors which may have an effect on their feelings.
I'm not sure why you don't think this happens, and it seems to come from a weird strawman or misunderstanding of what gender therapy is, given that all of those things are explored in gender therapy.
> What gender therapy isn’t
> A gender therapist shouldn’t attempt to diagnose you because of your identity or try to change your mind.
> A gender therapist should provide information and support that can help you better understand and connect with core aspects of yourself.
> Gender therapists don’t subscribe to the idea that there’s a “right way” to experience, embody, or express gender.
> They shouldn’t limit or presume treatment options or goals based on the labels or language used to describe yourself.
> Gender therapy should focus on supporting your personal experience of self and relationship with your body.
> A gender therapist should never presume your gender, force you into a gender, or attempt to convince you that you’re not a particular gender
There are plenty of people who are questioning their sexualities and genders, many of them will not turn out to be LGBT, and there isn't an epidemic of therapists encouraging confused people to think that they're gay or trans.
I wouldn't say that's a neutral position for a therapist either, it's a bit like saying that if a patient were bleeding from a hole in their leg that the neutral position would be forgoing a tourniquet in favor of questioning whether they even need blood in the first place.
Neutral therapists would acknowledge that gender therapy exists, along with plenty of other options, and would help their patients receive the care that's appropriate for them.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/gender-therapy...
>Haldeman writes that psychoanalytic treatment of homosexuality is exemplified by the work of Irving Bieber et al. in Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. They advocated long-term therapy aimed at resolving the unconscious childhood conflicts that they considered responsible for homosexuality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy#Psychoanaly...
It's very natural that in an environment more accepting of transgenderism, that more people will feel empowered to explore the idea and question what it could potentially mean for themselves. The appearance that a group that has accepted a single transgender person will somehow "begat" more transgender people seems pretty natural through this view, and seems much more scientific than the idea that transgenderism has some mysterious power to corrupt an otherwise cis-oriented person.
Thailand is one example of a society that has had years of history and experience welcoming trans people. I'd be interested to see how your "social contagion" theory would fare there.
As for self destructiveness and self mutilation... is something that people should decide for themselves what medical changes of their bodies they consider mutilation vs which ones they consider improvements. Some people get tattoos and they really like them. That is fine. I would consider one on mine a mutilation of my beautiful body. So the way you put it is quite insulting. Many transgender people wake up every day as if their bodies have been mutilated the day before: that's what they want to correct. It's a phenomenon I have no relationship with other than hearing it from other people, but I've seen it so many times.
From the 20s though the 40s, people who reported as being left handed went from 5 to 12% and it has lingered above 10% since.
Is being left handed a social contagion? Or did it become more socially acceptable, and fewer had to hide it?
> It spreads among friend groups
People often choose their friends among those who see the world in a similar way. Friendship circles are not formed though random selection. When one in a given friend circle comes out as gender queer, is it truly a surprise that others in that same group also come out?
> fine if it weren't for the fact that it's self destructive and encourages self-mutilation
What exactly are you referring to?