Some extra context from the linked Guardian article:
>The opera house was in the news last year when it cancelled 15 performances of the musical Billy Elliot after rightwing media claimed it could “turn children gay”.
>These things seem very obvious to me. What is difficult about this?
Clearly it's not that obvious, because all of your examples are wrong in some sense. Weather can be changed, medically dead people are brought back to life and people can most certainly be manipulated.
On the other hand, some people can't control their own thoughts and actions.
I agree. It's not an authority on right and wrong, but a framework for reaching conclusions. I just think neither the article nor CP's rebuttal covered that point adequately.
>Stoicism about personal responsibility, about changing what you can and accepting what you can't.
Determining what you can and can't change is an (almost) impossible task on its own. The way you describe Stoicism can be used to persuade a person that their status is unchangeable and that it should be accepted as "part of Nature's plan".
>Melatonin administration has been found to increase hair growth in a variety of mammals
>In a randomized double-blind study of 40 women with hair loss, melatonin solution applied to the scalp increased hair growth significantly relative to placebo
Seems like a positive. The article is suggesting that by helping regulate the circadian rhythm, the use of melatonin can potentially: extend lifespan, prolong fertility, reduce cancer incidence, reduce obesity and insulin resistance, improve neurological recovery from brain injury, improve skin resistance to damage (such as from UV rays) and increase hair growth.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to affect male pattern hair loss.
> Patriarchy doesn't cause male behavior, male behavior causes patriarchy.
There doesn't have to be a behavioral difference between men and women for societies to trend towards patriarchy. The simple fact that women bear children and are pregnant for nine months is enough to have limited their political prospects in pre-modern times.
A society of antiquity that allows women to fight in battle will have fewer women to bear children, which means fewer bodies to grind in the next war. Societies that forced their women into domestic roles could have faster manpower replenishment and win more wars, taking more territory and spreading their customs. Political power was inexorably tied to warfare, and women, often lacking the crucial military influence enjoyed by generals were locked out of the elite decision making classes.
Today, we no longer fight wars of annihilation, and a society that promotes women in the workforce has access to more brilliant minds than one that doesn't. I think there's more to gender relations than human psychology. Natural selection among human societies can be a powerful driver of cultural change.
>The opera house was in the news last year when it cancelled 15 performances of the musical Billy Elliot after rightwing media claimed it could “turn children gay”.