Yeah i get that. The puberty blockers seem really dangerous to me
Nonbinary babies? Let's have another fight!
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I don’t think the question here is how an adult identifies in the abstract. The bill in question doesn’t concern that, does it? I thought the OP was about a bill that governed what went ona birth certificate at the time of a child’s birth.
Not sure if you’re asking this in the context of specifying sex on the birth certificate or what. Obviously you’re selecting one detail from an infinite gamut of free choices in a free world. End of debate.
In the broader context of the civilization we are evolving and continuing to create, the raising of our young is obviously of utmost importance. How to raise our children (from a societal view)?How do we foster individual growth, freedom, and uniqueness while at the same time fostering willing, contributing membership in our civilization?
Jumping back to your original question, I think a significant detriment can arise from sowing confusion in children. Detrimental to both individuals and society. That doesn’t mean avoid helping the plight of gender dysphoria in youth. It means finding ways to help without losing or even abandoning all of the many positive aspects of our traditional world.
Last I have on this because I am honestly just burnt out on going around and around on this.Shotgun marriages went away. I haven't seen good studies that two parents hating each other for being trapped into a marriage was a good, or bad, thing for kids.
An analysis of out-of-wedlock births in the United States
George Akerlof and Janet Yellen look at the decline in shotgun marriages and rise in the births out of wedlock.www.brookings.edu
And the bullying and societal disdain plays no role in that?
The last two items are solved by needle exchanges, but it isn't liberals who oppose that. Someone hooked on intravenous drugs aren't going off because they have to share needles. People who aren't hooked aren't saying, "look, a needle exchange, time to become an intravenous addict".
To the other, there have always been drug addicts and alcoholics. Even back in the ancient days. Of course alcoholism America largely accepted for a long time. Otis on Andy Griffith was funny, and accepted. A huge part of today's drug addictions came about from LEGAL narcotics. Some people get hooked on them and hooked quickly and we had doctors prescribing them like candy while pharma encouraged it.
This is no offense Marvin but I can roll out statistic after statistic that will show you that for better mental health, physical health, quality of life, etc., etc. that there are fundamental basic "rules" that you could give to someone. You can get by if you deviate from any one of those rules, you could get by if you deviate from all of them. However, for each one you deviate from, the likelihood of negative consequences in your life increases, sometimes exponentially.
From my POV, the progressive left ran out of truly worthwhile causes to push and has now decided to push for the normalization of behavior that is the antithesis for those "rules". The right has their issues as well. Sometimes we are too "mean". However, progressive culture, again, to me, is responsibility free hedonistic nihilism.
I have to share space with the people who are destroying their lives with this philosophy and all the negativity I believe it spawns. That is how it impacts me.
But that's it for me on this today. This really just comes down to a fundamental disagreement on how we view the world and I truly believe there is no room for understanding here anymore. Not on these topics. There is no respect for the reticence of parents like me, we dance around the bullshit of "this is barely happening" and unless the government comes out and makes this policy that this is definitely taught in schools, there is no amount of evidence I could provide to convince you that the roots of it are literally everywhere. Although if I could I hardly think it would matter for the majority of people arguing with me because prevalence is just a red herring. It is the same as the slippery slope argument where we are told that thinking X is going to happen because X is silly and no way. Then X happens and everyone is suddenly cool with X because it isn't silly anymore and that was always the intended destination we just are not honest enough to say that up front because people would resist. So instead of addressing the actual issue we do this dance about how, "that is not happening at a whole bunch of places" while never defining where the tipping line would be because it really doesn't exist. There is no tipping line. The pre-k teacher that Ranger posted last week is a-okay with you guys but the majority of people are against that, now. But they have learned that the strategic use of -ist and -ism language will get about half of you in line to do just about whatever the hell they want.
And with that permission they do.
Did you read the hate speech spewed here and through other social media after the Trump/Clinton election? Every non-Clinton voter was called racist, white supremacist, misogynist, Nazi. Deplorable. By neighbors. By friends who then un-friended them. By family. By people hired by HR directors to come to their workplace and teach them what horrible people they are. Their kids were made pariahs at school and bullied on social media.
5 years ago if you forced a teacher to listen to unwelcome sexual discussions by heterosexual, homosexual or transgender persons, it would be called “hostile work environment sexual harassment.” Today, mainstream Democrats want her fired if she doesn’t want to teach about homosexuality and transgenderism to third graders. THIRD GRADERS.
These people are simply anti-social. They reject all societal norms. For the same reasons Adam and Eve ate the apple. Rebellion is the nature of they-kind.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
This would be the only sensible allowance - but it would need to come from the OB/GYN or another physician - not from a pink haired Woke parent.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Still, it’s pervading into academia and corporations out of fear of this Progressive wing. It needs to be stopped.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Because I don’t want to have to call someone by whatever ridiculous pronouns they want me to when they don’t make sense. That’s not bigotry, it’s about not being a goddamned sheep.
I will gladly call someone who has transitioned by their new pronoun. I will not use the ridiculous ones that are coming out like ze or zer.
The real damage is the “potential” damage. These identities run amok create a diabolical matrix of gender and race and god knows what other woke variable has to be entered into it. This diabolical matrix will then be the Progressive mission of the day to endow Equity! to all of the farcical matrix. Now my taxes go up to build a bathroom at school for the Ze’s and the quotas for university entry now further depress the evil cisgender kids’ chances of getting in.
Am I being hyperbolic? Probably. But talking about birthing people in the 90s would’ve sounded pretty goddamn hyperbolic then too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. If everyone would just listen to me and do all things as I say, all would be fixed in society. Thank you.
Hahahaha fantastic. Can't wait to use that later today when I get home. Ohhhhhhh get that baby a bottle. Ze so hungry
I do enjoy Marv being woke. Sitting on his couch in his Redhead Jeans watching 60 minutes, real excited for the equalizer, texting his woke buddy Unclemark over at the trailer park. Fantastic
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Lest you think I’m making this up. It’s out of control.
What if I make a mistake!Lest you think I’m making this up. It’s out of control.
If I told you once I told you a thousand f*ucking times IT'S ZIESELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Colleges must be awful
Where did anybody say her shtick was "a-okay"? Most if not all said she was, at best, doing a really shitty job of delivering a tolerance message.
I don't even know how you hold a brush that big.
The new law doesn't allow for any exceptions, as I understand it. Perhaps an oversight in the rush to get something passed to make a political statement?
My father-in-law often said, "There are three ways to do things. The right way, the wrong way, and my way....and we will do things my way".
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Perhaps. Sounds like it. But I don’t trust Oklahomans with science since they keep electing Jim Inhofe.
I wanted to be done but I think your tattoo analogy is going to give me one last chance to explain my POV.
Yesterday, it was widely accepted that getting a tattoo was a personal choice that adults could make to modify their body. It was a form of personal expression of who they are. Having the tattoo does not keep you from being able to legally do anything in society that anyone wants to do. Having the tattoo will lead some people to judge you and maybe not be comfortable around you. Some people want them, some people are ambivalent...not for me but what do I care, some people don't like them but don't stop you from getting them. Children cannot get them at all up to a certain age and teens cannot without parental permission.
Today, the argument was put forth that people are born with birthmarks which are just naturally occurring tattoos. They tell you that their tattoos were intended to be there but that their body had just not expressed them yet. They say their tattoos that they have added are birthmarks and that from here on out you must refer to them as birthmarks and that any inclination against wanting to have a tattoo is now a form of bigotry. Denying that they are innate birthmarks is bigotry. You must accept that this is how their body was naturally supposed to have presented itself. Schools must now discuss the bigotry in the past against people with tattoos. Kids must be taught how cool and normal it is to have a tattoo and that if they want one, but their parents are not on board, we'll help you express your true self by getting one. Parents who object for whatever reason are deemed bigoted domestic terrorists for getting angry in school board meetings. This isn't really happening, we aren't telling your kids this. However, the number of kids who have tattoos has gone from nearly zero to 20%.
Getting back to referring to them as tattoos now, as they have been for centuries, failure to do so can get you fired. Corporate America has sessions where we must all talk about how great tattoos and body modifications are. You cannot have any misgivings about them or people with them. If you are not attracted to someone with a tattoo, you are a bigot.
So you know that tattoos are not birthmarks. Yet you are now being forced to deny that reality, that existed forever, and accept this new reality. Forcing you to do this is a violation of your freedom. You are being forced to participate in something you do not agree with and the refusal to do so can have consequences to your job and on up based on new "discrimination" rules put in place by the government. Your kids are to be introduced to the lifestyle choice and you cannot opt out. This leads to them being fed what you believe and what billions of people before you have believed is a lie.
Forcing someone to repeat what they believe to be false is the biggest infringement of freedom that I can think of.
And now I am truly done.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
very similar to what my wife says...There is my way or there is the wrong way...well more implied than said.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Where is the line drawn on respecting someone's own view of their identity and enabling mental illness? See article below (which I thought was an Onion article at first).
I'm not saying NB=mentally ill, although I'd bet some people's identifying with NB is a symptom of a mental illness.
nypost.com
I'm not saying NB=mentally ill, although I'd bet some people's identifying with NB is a symptom of a mental illness.
‘Fictosexual’ man married hologram bride, but now struggles to bond with her
“Fictosexuals” are people who are sexually attracted to fictional characters.
nypost.com
I bet there are lawyers out there who would try to get the hologram half his stuff in a divorce.Where is the line drawn on respecting someone's own view of their identity and enabling mental illness? See article below (which I thought was an Onion article at first).
I'm not saying NB=mentally ill, although I'd bet some people's identifying with NB is a symptom of a mental illness.
‘Fictosexual’ man married hologram bride, but now struggles to bond with her
“Fictosexuals” are people who are sexually attracted to fictional characters.
Does there need to be a line? All the various "gender-affirming" treatments we have were created in the context of gender dysphoria being a clinically significant diagnosis.Where is the line drawn on respecting someone's own view of their identity and enabling mental illness? See article below (which I thought was an Onion article at first).
I'm not saying NB=mentally ill, although I'd bet some people's identifying with NB is a symptom of a mental illness.
‘Fictosexual’ man married hologram bride, but now struggles to bond with her
“Fictosexuals” are people who are sexually attracted to fictional characters.
In college I studied philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Rawls who had basic ideas about knowledge, right and wrong, reasoning, and the value of things. Basic ideas which constitute justice and fairness. To pass tests i memorized their quotes, but seldom completely understood what they meant.
Back in my day, we were graded on the "curve" with a "C" being average. If the average guy relies on common sense, then my philosophy grade in college proves that I rely on common sense rather than the reasoning of the great philosophers.
So in answering MTOTF's question, in my world (unlike many of Our Founders who understood the great philosophers), it is guys like me with common sense who determine what is fair and just.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
In how we think about these things, I think we should know the difference between the two things, yes.
I think some of the pushback on current trans attitudes is a concern (found in many different contexts besides sexuality) that those who seek to comfort someone might be encouraging actions that aren't in that person's best interests.
Could just as easily argue that those who seek to reject someone might be doing the same.
This bill is just a continuation on the overall debate. The GOP knows that saying, "all men are born men, all women are born women, and we don't want anything else" sells damn well. This bill is just another symptom of it. I don't know why anyone would put down anything other than the suspected gender on a birth certificate. The article seems to suggest one person sued and won a settlement. There are no numbers that I saw on how often this has happened.
Yes, I don't get why someone would be worked up enough to sue. I can't say that I understand why it matters to them. Maybe it is a clever way to try and keep boys from being part of Selective Service at 18 (and for the record, both genders should register or neither).
At the same point, I don't understand why others are so worked up the other way other than it is a political winner. If I can't stop a parent from teaching their children that Blacks/Jews/anyone else are inferior why should I try to stop a parent from teaching their child they are non-binary? Honestly, I wish they wouldn't but I can't stop it and I don't think I should have the power to stop it.
Of interest, I suspect more than a few self-described libertarians suddenly aren't so libertarian.
The vast majority, as adults, will be on welfare.
That adversely affects taxpayers.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Sure. I don't understand the relevance of that.
You asked why there needs to be a line (which I think of as "thinking about the difference between" result A and result B. Maybe this is where you are pushing back? You read that in a different sense?)
This was my thinking: If you want what is best for a person, you should be concerned with whether or not you are encouraging them to do something not in their best interests. Even if your actions are intended to do A (something beneficial) and actually help achieve A, if they also cause B (something detrimental, and maybe more long-term detrimental or in a utiles consideration of a higher, negative magnitude), it is important to know that, if for no other reason than to be careful about how you go about A so as to decrease the risk of B.
Maybe I misunderstood your line. I read you as suggesting that, if the root of someone's identity issues is mental illness, then supporting or affirming their identity must be necessarily harmful.
Some 13 states prohibit discrimination against transgender people in employment: California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
So some states are attempting to keep transgender folks off welfare.
P
My impression is the Oklahoma law has more to do with adults requesting changes to their birth certificates than the designations at birth.
Last edited:
Tempest in a teapot.
(Can we still say "tempest"? "teapot?" Have I been deemed offensive and designated for re-education?)
(Can we still say "tempest"? "teapot?" Have I been deemed offensive and designated for re-education?)
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Ok, that's helpful. No, I didn't mean to say that. I fully admit everyone, including me, probably bases their personal identity in some part on a false belief. I don't think that, in and of itself, qualifies as harmful or even a mental illness.
I think that if you encouraged someone to maintain a "fictosexual" persona, though, that would be harmful. I also think that enabling children to get hormone blockers or physical surgery to comfort their gender dysphoria could be harmful and crossing the line between comforting and encouraging harm.
These are impossibly complex and individualized issues, obviously, but worth thinking about (even if they don't affect me!).
It could be harmful, sure, but it might also be harmful to withhold such treatments, is my point. Neither you nor I have the kind of training to make those sorts of judgments. I think you're implicitly saying the same thing, but I just wanted to make it extra clear.
If we're on the same page on that point, then we are also on the same page re: encouraging. If your concern about normalizing gender dysphoria is that it pushes people toward one of different sets of treatment options by necessarily discouraging the one perceived as not as "accepting," then I agree. The particular treatment for any individual going through these issues should be determined based on what's best for that individual, not based on what society currently thinks should be most acceptable.
I agree with you in that. It might well be harmful. If anyone asked my counsel I would say don't give hormone blockers to children or do physical surgery. We are in total agreement at that point. I am not sure that gender identity is always baked in for children. It may be for some to be sure, but I'm not positive it is for all.
But to go Goat's direction, I'm not an expert in the field. I knew a trans person in college, and I barely knew them. No one I know today is trans to my knowledge. So at some point I have to rely on what an individual's doctors and counselors think. If an MD and a psychiatrist recommends it, maybe I should trust the diagnosis?
