Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Anorexic children are often given olanzapine, an antipsychotic. Not because they have any psychotic symptoms but because the most common side effect of olanzapine is weight gain. This is a drug only licenced in 1991 for its original purpose and although there has been some research there doesn't appear to be much on children without psychotic symptoms.

A quick Google suggests they don't recommend it for under 13's and I would have thought that extensive therapy would remain the first port of call in anorexia treatment, not medication. I'd be surprised if you could get a prescription for it as an outpatient after only a couple of meetings with a doctor. It's also, presumably, a short term treatment, not one you are on for years. This meta review of 24 studies suggested it's beneficial in high doses, short term. It talks about taking it for 10 weeks, not years like puberty blockers and decades for cross sex hormones.

https://ejnpn.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41983-020-00195-y

The analogy is interesting though. No-one ever suggests those suffering from anorexia need to change their body to match how they feel inside. Also the role of society pressure and social contagion in contributing to anorexia seems well documented, as does its prevalence amongst girls, which is the cohort of gender clinic referrals that has increased the most.

 

[multitool]

Oh dear, mentioning gender is not the same as sexism, just as mentioning race does not make you a racist.

Far be it for me to speak for @bobzmyunkle, but he quite correctly pointed out that you suggested support for @theclaud only exists because she is female and has male suitors, and then when challenged claimed that "her gender has nothing to do with it".

The former suggestion is, of course, disgustingly sexist. The second, a clear demonstration that you are not even in control of your own postings and the concepts contained within, let alone having the capacity to understand those put forward by others.

For those of us watching from afar your combination of male chauvinism and, alack, blunt stupidity, explains why you find the claud such a challenge and respond to her with such viciousness.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Far be it for me to speak for @bobzmyunkle, but he quite correctly pointed out that you suggested support for @theclaud only exists because she is female and has male suitors, and then when challenged claimed that "her gender has nothing to do with it".

The former suggestion is, of course, disgustingly sexist. The second, a clear demonstration that you are not even in control of your own postings and the concepts contained within, let alone having the capacity to understand those put forward by others.

For those of us watching from afar your combination of male chauvinism and, alack, blunt stupidity, explains why you find the claud such a challenge and respond to her with such viciousness.

🎻

 

[Pale Rider]

Far be it for me to speak for @bobzmyunkle, but he quite correctly pointed out that you suggested support for @theclaud only exists because she is female and has male suitors, and then when challenged claimed that "her gender has nothing to do with it".

The former suggestion is, of course, disgustingly sexist. The second, a clear demonstration that you are not even in control of your own postings and the concepts contained within, let alone having the capacity to understand those put forward by others.

For those of us watching from afar your combination of male chauvinism and, alack, blunt stupidity, explains why you find the claud such a challenge and respond to her with such viciousness.

Touched a nerve there, did I?

It's simply an observation, there are a load of middle-aged blokes who seek Claud's approval just so they can appear to be right on and on message.

The mask slips occasionally, which is always amusing.

Nothing changes, the same dance took place on the old NACA forum.

Equally, I thought then that much of Claud's stuff was faux intellectual bullshite, and I think the same now.

If you think any of that has anything to do with sexism, you are more stupid than I thought.

I judge all the posts on the words they contain, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Deleted member 159]

The former suggestion is, of course, disgustingly sexist.

What, no 'offended' - usual, I don't like it mantra

 

[Ian H]

I judge all the posts on the words they contain, nothing more, nothing less.

My observation is that, very often, you appear to misconstrue the meaning of a post. Judging the words is fine, but you really need to examine the sentences more carefully for your responses to be taken seriously.

 

[Pale Rider]

My observation is that, very often, you appear to misconstrue the meaning of a post. Judging the words is fine, but you really need to examine the sentences more carefully for your responses to be taken seriously.

What I would really like is for each post to be anonymous, ie, the bit on the left which shows our user names to be blank.

That way, everyone could only respond to the words.

It would finally get rid of the 'playing the man' on NACA which has been its most pressing problem for years.

As regards my stuff being taken seriously, it seems to me it is sometimes taken too seriously.

 

[AndyRM]

Who the f*ck seeks anyone's approval on this forum?

Nobody plays the man on here, that's just your perception.

 

[Pale Rider]

Nobody plays the man on here,

Behave, it happens time and time again.

 

[multitool]

Touched a nerve there, did I?

It's simply an observation, there are a load of middle-aged blokes who seek Claud's approval just so they can appear to be right on and on message.

The mask slips occasionally, which is always amusing.

Nothing changes, the same dance took place on the old NACA forum.

Equally, I thought then that much of Claud's stuff was faux intellectual bullshite, and I think the same now.

It isn't an observation, it's an inference tempered by your own view of women and their capabilities.

If you think any of that has anything to do with sexism, you are more stupid than I thought.

I judge all the posts on the words they contain, nothing more, nothing less.

You've outed yourself as a reactionary sexist, but are too thick to realise it.

It's a shame you lack awareness that your capacity for comprehension is so poor. You'd be a little quieter if you didn't.

 

[Pale Rider]

It isn't an observation, it's an inference tempered by your own view of women and their capabilities.

So any criticism of a woman - in this case what she wrote - must be sexist must it?

That is beyond stupid, not least because Claud has had some criticism for women over the years.

You could be a woman for all I care (or know).

My view of the abusive crap you post on here doesn't change.

 

[AndyRM]

Behave, it happens time and time again.

All kinds of insults are thrown around on here. By you and several other posters, myself included.

You seem to be unique in getting the most butt hurt about it.

 

[multitool]

So any criticism of a woman - in this case what she wrote - must be sexist must it

That is beyond stupid, not least because Claud has had some criticism for women over the years.

So, here you attempt to put up a strawman and then knock it down. How predictable.

It isn't "any criticism of a woman". It is saying specifically that males on the forum are only praising the Claude's posts because she is female. You said this yourself, explicitly. This is to seek to devalue the content of Claude's posts in themselves as well as the integrity of their readers.

You are, doubtless, too thick and too bound by cognitive dissonance to understand the workings of your own mind.

 

[Deleted member 121]

In other news, thanks this latest captured image, I have some strong clues on the identity of the Gimp from the Northeast terrorising the general area.

 

[Pale Rider]

You seem to be unique in getting the most butt hurt about it.

How do you work that out?

I respond to some insults, not others, same as everybody else.

By the way, here's yet another attack on the man:

So, here you attempt to put up a strawman and then knock it down. How predictable.

It isn't "any criticism of a woman". It is saying specifically that males on the forum are only praising the Claude's posts because she is female. You said this yourself, explicitly. This is to seek to devalue the content of Claude's posts in themselves as well as the integrity of their readers.

You are, doubtless, too thick and too bound by cognitive dissonance to understand the workings of your own mind.

More utter crap.

I've said several times male posters like Claud's posts because it makes them feel right on and on message.

No matter how much you twist it, that has nothing to do with gender.

As regards strawman and cognitive dissonance that is yet more of your internet bullshite.

@AndyRM, here's another one:

In other news, thanks this latest captured image, I have some strong clues on the identity of the Gimp from the Northeast terrorising the general area.

View attachment 4366

Can't you post anything else other than what I presume to be a personal attack?

Come on, just for a change, let's have some thoughts on a topic.