That article has about as many cited sources and studies as any wikipedia page. Well-rounded knowledge includes learning from multiple, different resources.
However “I didn’t read the article but I got the gist,” followed by a completely innacurate paraphrasing tells me this argument is a waste of time for both of us.
Whatever. I was legitimately trying to understand your argument without reading a nearly 5000-word dissertation. Anyways, I just noticed that the summary at the top of your link states
“King argues that population studies suggest that mood-based symptoms are not the most common nor most disruptive of menstrual changes. She then proposes that the trend of ‘psychologizing’ premenstrual symptoms is influenced by the sexist historical assumption of ‘the myth of the irrational female’—the idea that women, due to their reproductive biology, are pathologically emotional and thus have a reduced capacity for reason. The author concludes by calling for a more integrated and rigorous approach to PMS definitions and research to support people who experience cyclical symptoms, without unintentionally pathologizing the menstrual cycle or stigmatizing an entire gender.”
Which feels pretty damn close to my interpretation. Some people would rather be righteously upset about being misunderstood than explain themselves plainly.
“I don’t want to read I just want to argue” is what I got from that.
Why would I waste my time trying to prove a point to someone who outright tells me they don’t want to learn more about an issue from a reputable source?
The article, and even that paragraph, is close to the opposite of what you said.
If you actually want to learn more, it goes into how the metrics on PMS studies do not cover enough symptoms and changes, good and bad, to get an accurate definition of what PMS is and what specific changes cause it. Where it argues a psychological aspect its well founded in reputable, cited sources. Which you would know if you read it.
I’m saying this not for you, because you don’t like to read things before responding, but for clarification if anyone sees this. Because jesus christ what a terrible take.
That article has about as many cited sources and studies as any wikipedia page. Well-rounded knowledge includes learning from multiple, different resources.
However “I didn’t read the article but I got the gist,” followed by a completely innacurate paraphrasing tells me this argument is a waste of time for both of us.
I won’t be replying again.
Whatever. I was legitimately trying to understand your argument without reading a nearly 5000-word dissertation. Anyways, I just noticed that the summary at the top of your link states
“King argues that population studies suggest that mood-based symptoms are not the most common nor most disruptive of menstrual changes. She then proposes that the trend of ‘psychologizing’ premenstrual symptoms is influenced by the sexist historical assumption of ‘the myth of the irrational female’—the idea that women, due to their reproductive biology, are pathologically emotional and thus have a reduced capacity for reason. The author concludes by calling for a more integrated and rigorous approach to PMS definitions and research to support people who experience cyclical symptoms, without unintentionally pathologizing the menstrual cycle or stigmatizing an entire gender.”
Which feels pretty damn close to my interpretation. Some people would rather be righteously upset about being misunderstood than explain themselves plainly.
“I don’t want to read I just want to argue” is what I got from that.
Why would I waste my time trying to prove a point to someone who outright tells me they don’t want to learn more about an issue from a reputable source?
The article, and even that paragraph, is close to the opposite of what you said.
If you actually want to learn more, it goes into how the metrics on PMS studies do not cover enough symptoms and changes, good and bad, to get an accurate definition of what PMS is and what specific changes cause it. Where it argues a psychological aspect its well founded in reputable, cited sources. Which you would know if you read it.
I’m saying this not for you, because you don’t like to read things before responding, but for clarification if anyone sees this. Because jesus christ what a terrible take.
I am blocking you. Enjoy the last word.