I don’t see what it has to do with my argument, though.

You’re proposing an extremely harmful measure to remediate a problem that men cause without citing that we’re also the main victims of said problem. You’re framing it as if we only cause suffering and do not experience it.

Or are you saying that risk-taking is important so it’s worth keeping men the way they are even if it causes most serious crime?

Risk-taking is one example of effect of testosterone other than violence. It does not justify serious crime, it shows that if you get rid of testosterone you also get rid of other caracteristics.

Most people see violent crime as a problem, but few see it as a problem with men. When people discuss crime, I never hear them frame the problem as “there’s something causing men to commit 10 times as much rape and murder as women: what is it and how do we stop it?” Even feminists who talk about male violence generally don’t frame it that way.

Telling that a group very concerned with gender equality don’t frame it that way, isn’t it? Reasonable people will never suggest that racialized groups should learn western European values by norm to solve their high criminality rate.

No empirical data can lead us to accept something as “necessarily true,” but it stretches credulity to think that castration would reduce aggression in pretty much every kind of male mammal we try it on

Again, it doesn’t. People are orders of magnitude more complex than any other animal and, even then, we haven’t castrated that many animals. You’re thinking of domesticated animals, and we’ve done a lot of other things to remove undesired traits in them, like selective breeding. Do you think that eugenics is a reasonable solution to violence amongst men too?

that the most aggressive humans coincidentally have elevated testosterone levels.

So we already have a much more reasonable, though still very unethical, measure: bring down testosterone levels of violent individuals so that they’re closer to the average. Miles ahead and still in the same line of thought.

I don’t think that you actually believe that, since you said:

It may make them less aggressive, but what else would happen?

I specifically listed the other effects I could think of. If you think something else bad might happen, just say what it is. If your objection is that we should be cautious because there might be unexpected effects… well sure, that’s true, but it’s also a general-purpose objection to any suggestion to change anything ever.

I don’t have an specific effect in mind and your examples are bad. Let’s quickly analyze the third one:

3. They’ll won’t be able to get hard—That’s what viagra is for

Is solving hormone-caused impotence that straight-forward? What are the side effect of using Viagra? For how long can you take Viagra and how frequently?

I don’t think we could enumerate the problems that would arise from screwing with people’s endocrine systems. The issue isn’t that solutions also bring problems, the issue is that your “solution” brings so many problems that it is very hard to believe that you actually want to solve anything.

Furthermore, “make society less toxic” is a goal, not a policy.

Yeah, sure, and castrating men is a “policy”.

But I think chemically castrating men would have a bigger effect in a shorter amount of time than just about any other policy you could think of, and those effects would be in addition to anything else you did.

Wow, and the things you can think of are so spectacular, while you can’t even spot your own prejudices. Your “fax and logic” facade does not fool anyone other than yourself that you want to help society instead of externalizing your prejudices.

Well, men are also most of the victims of serious crime and do most of all dangerous jobs. These are all consequences of taking more risks.

Men commit almost all rape and murder, but no one seems to think this is a problem we need to do anything about.

Really? No one?

But we know exactly what to do about it when we’re talking about other species. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that putting men on testosterone-blockers is going to make them less dangerous.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that, it takes a fool, because it’s not necessarily true. It may make them less aggressive, but what else would happen? You’re giving an easy answer to an extremely hard problem.

YES, there are many people thinking about this. What about we make society less toxic first, for example? But I commend you for posting an actual unpopular opinion.

This feels like, IMHO, trying to put out a forest fire with a single bucket of water. Instead, we should have a platform that does not encourage making titles and thumbnails completely unrelated to the video’s content.

Being able to repair your or other people’s system. Also, you can store things other than isos, so your device doesn’t lose much utility, it uses a vfat partition.

It’s good to have you here!

Yeah, I just realized it 😂 But my point is, there is not an opaque algorithm trying to make people engage in nonsense.

Posting for the sake of posting, this decreases the quality of posts significantly. Let’s say there’s a new meme trending, what would happen on Reddit (and other social media) is subs would be filled with uninteresting slight variations of the same meme. I’m not against memes, but we also should pay attention to whether what we are posting is minimally interesting, useful or meaningful. Lemmy does not have a “recommended”, “trending” or “hot” feed, so this should help significantly in this regard.