We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
However, there are many ways to be male, as many ways as there are to be female. During youth and adolescence, people develop what we term "ego ideals" - notions of what our best self might be. These come from family peers, from the culture, and from experience which teaches us what things are effective and what is not.
Our ideals for ourselves are often at variance with our genetics and with our potentials. Reality is the toughest teacher and toughest grader ever.
It's my experience that women prefer masculine men (however defined) but it rarely means brutal or unkind men. Men and women have ideals not only for themselves, but for partners and friends too. What is my ideal life partner? Strong mentally and physically, smart and savvy, athletic, brave and adventurous, high life-competence and adaptability, emotionally-reserved but open to friendship, and sexy and tender at times. I found one of those guys. The detail that he knows how to make money is just a bonus because I make a good living on my own.
nb: I am not a Psychologist. I am an MD, a Psychiatrist. But we're all interested in people and what makes them tick or not tick.
People snark that Psychologists are not known to be the most manly guys or the most feminine women, but I wonder what readers think the APA is really trying to say?
The people who go into advocacy via the professional groups are not the same population as those who continue to work with patients. They tend to be more extreme in signalling their cultural distinctives.
I know plenty of psychiatrists and (even) psychologists who fit just fine into traditional male and female categories. They tend away from the stereotypical extremes of masculinity and femininity of previous generations, but they are not unrecognisable to everyday folk. Guys who hunt or play hockey; women in heels and jewelry, or who coach cheerleading. Don't buy into the generalisations.
I know plenty of the new stereotype of androgynous or even in-your-face contradiction traditional roles, but they aren't everyone in the field.
Assistant Village Idiot
You can do a Google search like this:
you tube+German + scientist+pedophile
it will open an amazing page for you. To begin with go to the you tube presentation where the German "scientist" tries to convince you that pedophilia is the same as homosexuality. And, so begins the career--building conversation that will provide lifetime employment for this "scientific" woman in academia. Of course, this feeds into the next democratic/liberal funded sponsored onslaught: de-criminalizing pedophilia. How can we not? My point is that there are millions of people out there who live and breath the next exciting titillating sexual challenge. Probably the only type of conversation they feel comfortable in engaging. Screaming, and marching and "fighting for the rights" of some under represented group is the only excitement in their very dull lives. Combine that need with the next "in" conversation and you will have in the very near future a country which has de-criminalized pedophilia. There are all ready websites teaching parents how to protect their children--which very subtly begins to put the responsibility on to the parent!
I think that like so many organizations the APA has been infiltrated by people with an agenda. It may be feminists who hate men, or it may be homosexuals who hate or at least want to marginalize heterosexuals. They are not stupid like the KKK and don't necessarily advertise their brand of hatred (some do and it's kind of in style today) but that is their agenda and they do it individually and conspiratorially. For some this is their life's work. They seek positions of power for the simple reason to further their agenda. Not to obey the constitution, not to work for the good of the country and the citizens but for their tribes special interest. We either need to fix this problem and prevent it from happening again or we better get used to baking the frigging cake when told to.
This week's New England Journal arrived today. The lead "perspective" editorial is on transgenders (of course) and bemoans the HHS defining gender as "biological , immutable condition determined by a person's genitalia at birth."
No doubt five year olds need genetic counseling to decide if they are boys or girls or neither.
The NEJM has always been left wing, after all, it is Boston, but this is more insanity.
Sorry, can't buy what the APA is selling. They can't even define what a well adjusted person is supposed to be. (It is hard to find a decent or complete definition of Human Nature.) Isn't a bench mark needed to begin to tell if a person has problems? Sure, the extreme deviations of a bell curve tell you something. Suicidal tendencies are an extreme. When does an oddity in behavior become extreme? How does a person decide if they need counseling help if there is no generally accepted norms that they or others can identify?
When all identity is fluid and self-identity are all the rage. When 'finding yourself' and 'you can be anything you want to be' are the touch stones of learning maturity. When all social rules of manners, style, and taste are thrown out. How can the APA issue guidelines for masculine behavior or any behavior?
I view this as part of a race to the bottom for the professional virtue-signalling crowd. They're falling all over themselves to convince their besties that they have the right opinions, in contravention to all historical accumulated knowledge and you know, the common sense that most normal people possess.
This kind of propaganda always seeps into popular culture to some degree, where people assume, hey,if the "experts" say it, it must be true, even if my own localized, specific, empirical knowledge refutes it.
Related thought experiment: imagine the uproar if a similar article was published calling femininity toxic. It sounds ridiculous on its face, because it is. And so is this one. Spending even ten seconds thinking about it is ten seconds wasted.