What’s wrong with people?
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
I think I saw an "IU SUCKS" sign. They just can't let it go.
I absolutely loathe the idea that a response to things that are put out there is viewed as "too much attention to something insignificant" when the something insignificant was pushed to a point that it created the backlash. It isn't like socially conservative people woke up one day and decided, "let's go pick on the transgender folks". It was a reaction to the transgender issue seeming to be everywhere all at once.
It is so small an issue that a Tik Tok transgender lunatic got face time with the leader of the free world.
I think most of us are in the camp that it is OK to be trans but not yet for kids.
Of course all the oxygen in the debate belongs to the fringes on both sides.
I hope “most of us” are in the camp of not paying for the healthcare for this lifestyle choice
Depends on what you mean. If a corp wants to offer it on their insurance, should it be allowed.
Interesting what the Medicare site says about cosmetic surgery. Could a transexual call their organs a "malformed body part"?
Medicare usually doesn’t cover cosmetic surgery unless you need it because of accidental injury or to improve the function of a malformed body part.
Personally I don't think I would allow it under Medicare but am willing to listen to studies. Bariatric is covered as it saves future healthcare costs and is a quality of life issue. There are hoops to jump through, I believe documented failure at other options. There may be similar need for gender reassignment. But at this moment, barring studies I have not looked for, no to government but yes to private companies.
I'd like to know what you mean about the fringe on the right. Because all I've seen are left wingers yelling and screaming about it at statehouses and schoolboards etc. and calling people who are trying to protect anyone under 18 a hater.
Of course there are but once again in the statehouses and school board meetings, I only see one side sucking that "oxygen" demanding our way or the highway. Protecting kids until they are old enough to make there own medical decisions isn't about discrimination.
Note what I said, most are in that camp. But people who are trans are attacked more often. So they and supporters are reflexive when people sound bullying.
Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu
How many children are we talking about? And how does that number compare to a variety of challenges faced by our children? The hyper-focus on trans by politicians is more about fundraising than protecting children. And there are plenty of politicians on the right eager to make headlines about trans so they can report back to their supporters...and ask for the much-needed dollars to continue the fight.
So once again, I'd like to know this right fringe involved in the debate that you are talking about.Note what I said, most are in that camp. But people who are trans are attacked more often. So they and supporters are reflexive when people sound bullying.
Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu
Lol…we’re all going to pay for it, at least for the adults. The only question is can we stop children from being abused. Putting in states laws is the best plan of attack.
Legislation in Oklahoma and South Carolina would make it a felony to provide hormonal or surgical transition treatment to transgender people younger than 26 — an uncharted incursion into adults’ health care. Other bills in both states, and in Kansas and Mississippi, would ban such care up to age 21. And bills in more than a dozen states would ban it for minors, which Arkansas was the first to do in 2021, against the consensus of major medical organizations.
A bill in Mississippi — declaring that “separate is not inherently unequal,” an allusion to Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling in which the Supreme Court upheld segregation — would define sex as immutably set at birth, denying transgender identities under state law. A measure in West Virginia would define “any transvestite and/or transgender exposure, performances or display” as obscene, potentially outlawing transgender people’s presence around children.
G.O.P. State Lawmakers Push a Growing Wave of Anti-Transgender Bills
Four states could ban transition care into young adulthood. Lawmakers in several others want to restrict drag shows in ways that could affect transgender performers broadly. It’s part of a long-term plan.
Note the quote "This is a political winner,...". Isn't that specifically demigoging?
Legislation in Oklahoma and South Carolina would make it a felony to provide hormonal or surgical transition treatment to transgender people younger than 26 — an uncharted incursion into adults’ health care. Other bills in both states, and in Kansas and Mississippi, would ban such care up to age 21. And bills in more than a dozen states would ban it for minors, which Arkansas was the first to do in 2021, against the consensus of major medical organizations.
A bill in Mississippi — declaring that “separate is not inherently unequal,” an allusion to Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling in which the Supreme Court upheld segregation — would define sex as immutably set at birth, denying transgender identities under state law. A measure in West Virginia would define “any transvestite and/or transgender exposure, performances or display” as obscene, potentially outlawing transgender people’s presence around children.G.O.P. State Lawmakers Push a Growing Wave of Anti-Transgender Bills
Four states could ban transition care into young adulthood. Lawmakers in several others want to restrict drag shows in ways that could affect transgender performers broadly. It’s part of a long-term plan.www.nytimes.com
Note the quote "This is a political winner,...". Isn't that specifically demigoging?
Legislation in Oklahoma and South Carolina would make it a felony to provide hormonal or surgical transition treatment to transgender people younger than 26 — an uncharted incursion into adults’ health care. Other bills in both states, and in Kansas and Mississippi, would ban such care up to age 21. And bills in more than a dozen states would ban it for minors, which Arkansas was the first to do in 2021, against the consensus of major medical organizations.
A bill in Mississippi — declaring that “separate is not inherently unequal,” an allusion to Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling in which the Supreme Court upheld segregation — would define sex as immutably set at birth, denying transgender identities under state law. A measure in West Virginia would define “any transvestite and/or transgender exposure, performances or display” as obscene, potentially outlawing transgender people’s presence around children.G.O.P. State Lawmakers Push a Growing Wave of Anti-Transgender Bills
Four states could ban transition care into young adulthood. Lawmakers in several others want to restrict drag shows in ways that could affect transgender performers broadly. It’s part of a long-term plan.
Note the quote "This is a political winner,...". Isn't that specifically demigoging?
SC Senate weighs ban on gender-transitioning treatments for youth
A bill banning gender-transitioning hormone treatments and surgery in South Carolina for anyone under 18 is expected to advance in the Senate, but a looming legislative deadline makes its passage
So I just checked one of these from a state paper dated yesterday-South Carolina which says it's 18 not 26 for the hormonal or surgical transition treatment. Not particularly fringe.
SC Senate weighs ban on gender-transitioning treatments for youth
A bill banning gender-transitioning hormone treatments and surgery in South Carolina for anyone under 18 is expected to advance in the Senate, but a looming legislative deadline makes its passagewww.postandcourier.com
So I just checked one of these from a state paper dated yesterday-South Carolina which says it's 18 not 26 for the hormonal or surgical transition treatment. Not particularly fringe.
Says 21 at the statehouse site
Yes I saw that. Possibly an amendment going from 21 to 18 that hasn't had time to be posted publicly since the paper's date was more recent. Just guessing. Certainly not the Times age 26. I think 26 would be too old and restrictive and at 21 not sure but definitely 18. Last comment on this time to move on.
I think 18 is where most are, not 26.
New bill would ban gender-confirming care for anyone under 26 in Oklahoma
A new bill in Oklahoma would ban gender-confirming care for transgender patients under 26 making it a felony for physicians to provide or recommend the procedure.
If I have the time and energy later I will address this in more detail, but not a single European country has banned them.
Three countries have restricted the use to clinical studies for people under 18. The reasoning has nothing to do with the lack of success when using them for people under 18 or negative consequences of doing so.
No coverage under public aid. Private insurance companies can cover what they want.
What is it with people misrepresenting my arguments in this thread?
I’ve never mentioned anything about people over 18. I’ve only ever discussed minors, specifically prepubescent children.
Also, “restricting the use to clinical studies for people under 18” IS banning them unless you wanna play semantic word games like you’re doing here.
And the reason they’ve been “restricted to use in clinical studies” is that there is no evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks, which I’ve also said in this thread.
People seem to overlook or miss this point entirely. Until the left started pushing the trans agenda or whatever you call it, I had no idea it was even a thing. Zero people I know did either. In my mind the backlash isn't because of hate or prejudice. It's because it's extremely abnormal and ridiculous and being pushed on kids and forced in front of you. If they left kids alone and did their own thing noone would care.
The truth behind the case that stoked Stanford law students to fury
DailyMail.com can reveal the mugshot of Norman Varner, 42, a child porn convict who says her name is now Kathrine Nicole Jett. Kathrine Nicole Jett,
I am comfortable with the side I am on in this particular debate. I support not mutilating children. I support real women having their own spaces to conduct basic human functions and their right to compete on a level athletic playing field. I support that, even if a real woman has committed a crime, she should not have to worry about being assaulted by a convicted pedophile playing games because too many people in this country have lost common sense along with their minds.
After the trans people get mainline it will be the MAPS next. Bank on it. We are being pushed and pushed ever more increasingly to accept the fringiest of fringe freaks under the banner of LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ. The movement has gone beyond the Pete Buttigieg types who like home decorating and all the other gay stereotypes. Nah, now it is about men dressing like caricatures of hookers and twerking in kids faces for entertainment and on and on. "Why get so worked up over a small portion of the public?" Turn that around, why throw the majority of the human existence and understanding on its head for a percent of a percent?
Draw your line here or expect the "kids are old enough to explore their sexuality with whomever they want" argument in 10 to 20 years. Bank on it.
The fact that “minor attracted person” is even a thing because “pedophile” carries a “negative connotation” is proof of what you’re saying.The truth behind the case that stoked Stanford law students to fury
DailyMail.com can reveal the mugshot of Norman Varner, 42, a child porn convict who says her name is now Kathrine Nicole Jett. Kathrine Nicole Jett,www.dailymail.co.uk
I am comfortable with the side I am on in this particular debate. I support not mutilating children. I support real women having their own spaces to conduct basic human functions and their right to compete on a level athletic playing field. I support that, even if a real woman has committed a crime, she should not have to worry about being assaulted by a convicted pedophile playing games because too many people in this country have lost common sense along with their minds.
After the trans people get mainline it will be the MAPS next. Bank on it. We are being pushed and pushed ever more increasingly to accept the fringiest of fringe freaks under the banner of LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ. The movement has gone beyond the Pete Buttigieg types who like home decorating and all the other gay stereotypes. Nah, now it is about men dressing like caricatures of hookers and twerking in kids faces for entertainment and on and on. "Why get so worked up over a small portion of the public?" Turn that around, why throw the majority of the human existence and understanding on its head for a percent of a percent?
Draw your line here or expect the "kids are old enough to explore their sexuality with whomever they want" argument in 10 to 20 years. Bank on it.
I’ve tried to step back from this debate because I think people literally lose rationality on this issue. And it bothers me more than I’m comfortable with. If you want to defend puberty blockers for 7-8-9 year old kids, you’ll get no quarter from me. I’m done.
Case in point-my grandson is 4 months old. He spent the night at our house for the first time Tuesday. He’s never been away from my daughter overnight before. He smiled at me and talked to me all night that night, except for when he was hungry or needed a diaper change. Then he had no patience at all.
I literally looked at him and thought of this thread. That there are people in this world that would have me believe that a child less than a YEAR OLDER than he is RIGHT NOW is telling them that he is unhappy as a boy. It’s absolutely f*****g ridiculous. I won’t be a party to it.
I would never do or encourage anyone else to do anything illegal or unethical but I will fight this with every fiber of my being from now on.
I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I didn’t.
Last edited:
What is wrong with liberals? So desperate to fight the gender battle and push back on nature. This has to be the worst waste of research expense I’ve seen in a while.
So, they created eggs from the cells of two male mice…..
…….and implanted them into female mice.
Great work, guys. Splendid. Top notch. You’re doing Gods work.
Meanwhile, still no cure for cancer or aids.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Disagree. Think it is incredible. Worried about ramifications, though.
They were so preoccupied with whether they could they didn’t think whether they should
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
It’s going to be done. We have to accept that at this point. Humans are curious and vain and desire prestige and power. That’s not going to change.
Unless these guys genetically engineer future generations without these traits. . .
I’ve always wondered if communism would work with the right genetically engineered humans. Would we call them humans at that point? Ah, the sci-fi novel I always wanted to write.
I think 18 is where most are, not 26.
New bill would ban gender-confirming care for anyone under 26 in Oklahoma
A new bill in Oklahoma would ban gender-confirming care for transgender patients under 26 making it a felony for physicians to provide or recommend the procedure.www.google.com
SC Senate weighs ban on gender-transitioning treatments for youth
A bill banning gender-transitioning hormone treatments and surgery in South Carolina for anyone under 18 is expected to advance in the Senate, but a looming legislative deadline makes its passage
Marvin, Oklahoma adjusted age from 26 to 18. Looks like most states are ending up with age 18. Sorry now I'm done.
If I EVER hear my grandchildren talk about 'gender' before they're teenagers, I will have a serious talk regarding legal action against whatever entity is spreading that shit. And that includes their (basically woke) parents, one of whom I failed as a parent by not finding out what was being taught in her school. Fortunately, I haven't heard any woke shit from them on that subject, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's coming.
So, Cooler lawyers, start educating yourselves on the matter.
Really? The only incredible thing would be getting rid of women altogether.
World would have much less drama
We'd still have McM for drama.
His is much less dramatic than what you get with women. Just ask him
I’m doin pretty good without women. I’ve got a couple old coug exes eyeballin me like a wounded antelope but I don’t want em!!!
Gremlins. They hide in the dark corners of campus and you wouldn’t even know they exist other than when they come out to boycott a conservative speaker. Then they slink back to their anti-social, depressed hidey holes.
I heard about this on the radio this week. I seem to recall them saying it has ramifications for cancer treatment and infertility.
