Transgender Issues

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

in your view

That's the thing, though. It's not just my view or the view of a couple thousand people, either.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're stretching language to a degree where it becomes elastic.

Kind of like gender by extremists? Irony? Mind you, at their level it becomes irrelevant. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I believe that you are obliged to use words that both sides agree on

Not necessarily. 

From Trumps aides "alternative facts" to Hillary Clinton's scolding men who abuse of their power, yet remaining silent on her husband. 

I think you have a responsibility to support your argument. Wording doesn't matter. 

Dave Chapelle made valid points on the trans community. Some people disagreed. It doesn't invalidate his points.

I recently saw the cringeworthy exchange between Don Lemon and  Vivek Ramaswamy.

The latter didn't use acceptable language to Lemon, in that he wasn't black, but presented a rock solid argument about the black community. Skin color shouldn't have mattered.

Again. Totally irrelevant in some instances.

If my point is garbage I can live with that. But to state am stretching language when I presented you what I meant by the words am employing--you can choose to feel my point isn't good, or to accept it. All parts of debate.

Again. I personally feel that in my opinion some activists within the trans community use grooming tactics similar to recruiting tactics used by terrorist groups.

Of course they aren't raising terrorists, but again, my opinion, they are spewing garbage that these people are lapping up. 

To the tune of skyrocketing levels of youth under 18, becoming trans. 

I feel this should be questioned. You may or may not feel the same.

My point is valid. If you don't agree with my point, hate it, find it ridiculous or laughable, those are all valid ways that you could feel. 

It doesn't invalidate my points, though. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

 

1. I think you have a responsibility to support your argument. Wording doesn't matter. 

2. If my point is garbage I can live with that. But to state am stretching language when I presented you what I meant by the words am employing--you can choose to feel my point isn't good, or to accept it. All parts of debate.

3. I feel this should be questioned. You may or may not feel the same.

4. My point is valid. If you don't agree with my point, hate it, find it ridiculous or laughable, those are all valid ways that you could feel. 

5. It doesn't invalidate my points, though. 

1. So you're ok with people calling trans women "women" if they support their arguent ? I doubt that.  I don't think you can accept the thing called subjectivity.

2. 3. 4. 5.  I would rather you make your points explicitly rather than calling people names as part of it.  

Let's try this - what insult words am I allowed to call YOU if I feel I have a valid argument ?  Of course your arguments are valid to you, pick an argument that would be valid to me and let me know what pejoratives are ok.  Thanks.

 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So you're ok with people calling trans women "women" if they support their arguent ?

They can support their argument, but their argument doesn't stand strong considering their genitals and DNA betray them.

It would be like you calling a Porshe a Toyota. Yeah, no. 

My argument compared those grooming children to be terrorists to those grooming kids such as influencers. Tactics are similar. Of course the end game is vastly different.

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

if I feel I have a valid argument ? 

My argument is valid. Am not the only one who is concerned kids are being force fed sexuality and gender ideology when they can barely understand the concept if good and bad. I presented tons of links in this thread. Was very specific on precisely what I am vehemently against.

As long as this group is demanding the entirety of the pie (highjacking words like breastfeeding or menstruation, so they can feel better about themselves as an example), vs their place at the table to eat (which they are entitled to), there will always be a major divide.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Yeah, no. 

2. My argument is valid. 

 

1. Ok, well you are doomed to work in a world where people talk past each other.  By your own rules, you have to live with it.
2. Of course you think so.

The point of language is to communicate, and if people don't agree on taxonomy then you are doomed to squabble over terminology, ie. nothing important.  It sounds like you're ok with that, or that you think nothing can be done despite my submission of a framework to address the problem.

The next thing to puzzle on is why you think that this is normal course of affairs.... on a discussion board.

[Americana Antifa]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And once again Antifa has to lie to make her point.

THe 'spike' in left handedness is based on a survey and given the numbers is more likely a statistical blip than real.  If you blow up the graph  enough it kind of looks impressive tho.

Just because the truth makes you mad, doesn't mean it's not the truth.

Yes, it was a statistical blip, which was caused by society no longer hating left-handed people. There was a spike, then it leveled out, and there hasn't been a notable spike since.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The second graph is not the number of gay relationships -ITS THE NUMBER OF GAY MARRIED COUPLES!   SO AMAZINGLY AFTER GAY MARRAGE WAS LEGALIZED MORE GAYS GOT MARRIED!! IT"S A MIRACLE!!!!

Um... yes? There wasn't an increase in homosexuality. There was a social change that led to a spike in gay people getting married. The rate of gay marriages isn't continuing to spike today, rather it's leveled out.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What a stupid argument. 

The sudden increase is children with gender issues is not normal and it's scaring professionals.

Yes, they said the same thing about gay people. Literally every argument conservatives are using against trans rights is recycled from their arguments against gay rights. Hollywood is promoting the gay agenda, schools are turning our kids gay, gay people are groomers, soon everyone will be gay, blah blah blah. Now it's the same shit, different target.

It's so verfickt transparent and just shows what a crappy job schools do at teaching history.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But lets listen to a real expert - Dr Susan Brady who's a specialist in transgender kids.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/susan-bradley-how-trans-activists-are-unethically-influencing-autistic-children-to-change-genders

It began, commendably, as activism for the rights of that very small number of people who experience persisting discomfort with their biological gender. But it has evolved into an ideological movement to normalize the practice of changing genders — and in the process is crossing ethical lines with a particularly vulnerable subset of young people struggling with issues of gender identity.

Nope. If you're going to rely on the expects, then you can't selectively choose the ones that help your argument. You have to go by what the majority of experts in the field are saying.

There's also just a severe lack of evidence for what she's saying. Bradley has been making this claim since the 2000s. So how come the number of people who regret transitioning is still less than a percent? And that's with the fact that many trans people regret transitioning because their family rejected them for doing so, not because they stopped identifying as the gender they wanted to be. 

By siding with Bradley, you're siding with someone who has a minority view in her field, plus she has failed to present any evidence that kids are being groomed to transition.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The point of language is to communicate, and if people don't agree on taxonomy

The irony, considering we are talking about a group that still hasn't decided how many genders that there are yet want us to stop "incorrectly" stating there are only two.

Is that what you're eluding to?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Just because the truth makes you mad, doesn't mean it's not the truth.

I see you found that mirror to talk to again   and you couldn't refute the point

2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Yes, it was a statistical blip, which was caused by society no longer hating left-handed people.

Nope, just a statistical blip. That happens from time to time. You're talking about a very low sample rate.

2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

There was a spike, then it leveled out, and there hasn't been a notable spike since.

That happens with small samplings.

2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Um... yes? There wasn't an increase in homosexuality. There was a social change that led to a spike in gay people getting married. The rate of gay marriages isn't continuing to spike today, rather it's leveled out.

The social change was that gays could marry.  And as you point out - that didn't change the number of gays.

So you admit that it's just smoke and mirrors. We're talking about the actual number of transgender kids increasing.

 

2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Yes, they said the same thing about gay people.

Nope. THey never did. Show me ONE medical paper that shows that was a concern. There isn't any.

2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

It's so verfickt transparent and just shows what a crappy job schools do at teaching history.

The only thing it shows is that you prefer lies to truth.

2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Nope. If you're going to rely on the expects, then you can't selectively choose the ones that help your argument. You have to go by what the majority of experts in the field are saying.

Show me an actual recent poll of all the experts showing what the majority thinks.

Or did you lie again?

 

2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

There's also just a severe lack of evidence for what she's saying. 

Nope.  In fact others are now saying the same thing. And lawsuits are happening over this as well. Sorry kiddo.

2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

By siding with Bradley, you're siding with someone who has a minority view in her field,

Prove it. SHow me where the majority of professionals out there have looked at her work and said it's all rubbish.

Fact is - that doesn't exist.

And once again you have to lie to make your point.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

1. The irony, considering we are talking about a group that still hasn't decided how many genders that there are yet want us to stop "incorrectly" stating there are only two.

Is that what you're eluding to?

1. No, I'm talking about you and me.  If you disagree with people bending language why are you doing it yourself?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you disagree with people bending language why are you doing it yourself?

How did I bend an already fluid word? There are so many descriptions to the word I used. I provided an example to illustrate mine. 

You disagreed. Has nothing to do with my misuse of a word, and everything to do with you feeling your approval of it is necessary to move this debate forward.

I then provided you an example of what you were doing, illustrated  by Lemon and Ramaswamy on CNN, where approval or almost a permission was required for Ramaswamy to talk about a subject matter.

Lemon became so stuck on the mechanics of it all, because he had nothing to bring to the debate, itself.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

1. How did I bend an already fluid word? There are so many descriptions to the word I used. I provided an example to illustrate mine. 

 

1. All language is fluid.  It's useless to say that.  The point is that 'groomer' is usually used to describe someone who is grooming a child for sexual assault.  If you want to ignore that, then fine but I don't accept your use of this word in a discussion with me.

It's simple.  You don't get to unilaterally decide the language of our discourse.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The point is that 'groomer' is usually used to describe someone who is grooming a child for sexual assault.

It is also often used to describe terrorist or radical groups who often groom children due to the ease of which they can take advantage of their vulnerabilities.

Both are highly acceptable uses of the world.

One cannot ignore the use of grooming tactics used by some within this movement in order to isolate children, and bring them to harm under guise of support.

Difference is the intentions of the groups who employ these tactics. One has good intentions, but the harm is still devastating for some, who will not know any better as children. Countering or bringing up the grooming tactics to some, will mean you get doxxed, called transphobic or otherwise are silenced.

If the movement wasn't harmful to kids, there wouldn't be so many detransitioners, giving a voice to just "maybe" we should be looking at the long term implications of teaching gender and queer ideology to impressionable children. The fact that these people are targeted by the movement for the unintended consequence of their ideologies, speaks volumes to the true intentions.

The tactics used by some of the most prominent activists, are the same.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you want to ignore that, then fine but I don't accept your use of this word in a discussion with me.

You can refuse to accept it all you wish, but doesn't make it incorrect just because you do.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Both are highly acceptable uses of the world.

 

2. You can refuse to accept it all you wish, but doesn't make it incorrect just because you do.

1. I don't accept that, and if you haven't noticed I haven't responded to your arguments for many posts now.

2. I don't care about your judgments on this topic. Do you agree that we both get to decide the terms used in debate or not?  How about insults? Are you okay with insults? Because groomer is for sure an insult.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't accept that

Then don't. Its your right. It doesn't do a thing to change my opinion on the matter, along with millions of others.

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you agree that we both get to decide the terms used in debate or not?

If presented with evidence, then sure. If you present me with evidence to support your claim, by all means. I may not agree with it, but doesn't make your opinion wrong just because I disagree with it.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

 

1. If presented with evidence, then sure. If you present me with evidence to support your claim, by all means. I may not agree with it, but doesn't make your opinion wrong just because I disagree with it.

1. Well I don't accept it so we are at an impasse.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well I don't accept it so we are at an impasse.

As mentioned long ago, we can agree to disagree ?

If you refuse, then no problem. I'm good with either scenario, but am vehemently against changing my opinion or being pressured to, because of disagreement.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. As mentioned long ago, we can agree to disagree ?

2. am vehemently against changing my opinion  

1. I don't agree to disagree. If you don't use language that I consider civilized then why would I expect you to participate in good faith?

2. It's good that you can admit to being closed-minded at least.

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't agree to disagree. If you don't use language that I consider civilized then why would I expect you to participate in good faith?

2. It's good that you can admit to being closed-minded at least.

It takes a severe loser to try to 'win' an argument with 'technicalities' this way.  Honestly @Perspektiv it's not worth your time. All he's going to do is take a holier-than-tho attitude while behaving like a juvinile and playing childish semantics game.  He's not debating in good faith and rarely does. move on.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's good that you can admit to being closed-minded at least.

In your opinion. You have made clear opinions don't matter unless they are your own. Pot calling the kettle, much?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't agree to disagree.

No problem. My points still stand. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It takes a severe loser to try to 'win' an argument with 'technicalities' this way. 

And doing so poorly, to boot.

I love debating, so it really doesn't bother me. I used to be told I would be in politics in grade school, as seemed to enjoy an entire classroom of people hating my opinion, and would calmly provide evidence for my points and stick to it.

Most cower, and switch opinions the moment they feel the slight burn of pressure. 

Same reason why so many politicians have become spineless to this trans ideology movement, or panic when asked to define a woman. Know what you stand for, is critical in my opinion.

If defining words like woman make you panic, future generations of them don't stand a chance.

[Michael Hardner]

46 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. You have made clear opinions don't matter unless they are your own.

2. Pot calling the kettle, much?

 

1. How so?  I have offered for us to use mutually respectful language.  You refused.  Who's the one deciding to impose their subjectivity here? Hint: you.

2. It's called projection.  Look it up.

[Guest]

On 5/5/2023 at 6:57 AM, Americana Antifa said:

transphobes

Why is it transphobic? How many genders are there? 

On 5/5/2023 at 6:57 AM, Americana Antifa said:

there have always been societies that recognize three genders.

So there are three genders? So you're saying the gender unicorn is incorrect?

How do you surgically become a third gender?

There is no third gender. Only a gender abnormality that these activists have used to try to prove a point. 

Gender fluidity has always been a thing. Tomboys. Affeminate men. This doesn't make them the opposite gender.

On 5/5/2023 at 6:57 AM, Americana Antifa said:

In some states, being trans is way less acceptable.

Or isn't pushed onto kids. Some happen to believe in letting kids be just that. Leave the heavy stuff for when they can actually understand it.

My wife's daughter we feel, may be gay. She has always identified herself as more masculine and likes to dress accordingly. My wife reminds her she's a girl. 

Thats because she is. In today's world, this can be child abuse. 

Fast forward a few years, and her daughter told her mom she thinks she may be gay. Imagine if she had started gender affirming her as male, just because she said she was. Asking questions isn't the same as rejecting.

On 5/5/2023 at 6:57 AM, Americana Antifa said:

Though with the current push for trans genocide from the Right, we might start seeing a reversal.

Or a return to common sense. Trans people should be supported, but ideology doesn't belong in kids classrooms.

Teach your kids not to be pieces of s*** to people just because they are different. Goes a longer way.

On 5/5/2023 at 6:57 AM, Americana Antifa said:

Adults grew up when being trans was less acceptable.

It still isn't acceptable in some settings, and never will be. I don't believe a male belongs in a female prison. Or at very least, among the regular population. 

Ideology won't change this. What this group is pushing for, are laws that would remove basic freedoms, in order to accommodate this group. IE some have pushed for making misgendering a crime. 

This is extremism, not common sense.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How so?

Read your posts.

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's called projection.

You flailing in debate doesn't automatically make me illiterate.

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Read your posts.

2. You flailing in debate doesn't automatically make me illiterate.

1. As I thought, you have nothing to back it up.

2. I gave a reason in my last post, which you didn't address.  Do you have a response or not?

 

Again, I offer you a framework to discuss in mutual respect.  You refused, demand the right to use deceptive and insulting language, then called me arrogant and say I'm flailing in debate.

News flash: we're not debating here.  We're trying to agree to terms of discussion.  You don't seem interested.  One more post for your agreement then I will leave it alone.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

As I thought, you have nothing to back it up.

In your opinion.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you have a response or not?

Sorry, but I don't work with ultimatums. My point is valid, and you don't agree with it. That unfortunately isn't my problem.

Turning passive aggressive or petty, hasn't changed that for you, and in fact is hypocritical since your stance is one of taking the high road, with your virtue signaling.

Speaking of which, welcome to ignore. You are welcome to be predictable in your subsequent post. The stage is yours.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

1. In your opinion.

2. My point is valid, and you don't agree with it. That unfortunately isn't my problem.

3. Turning passive aggressive or petty, hasn't changed that for you, and in fact is hypocritical since your stance is one of taking the high road, with your virtue signaling.

4. Speaking of which, welcome to ignore. You are welcome to be predictable in your subsequent post. The stage is yours.

1. Well you could, I don't know, POST something. That would answer that.

2. I am no longer addressing that point.

3. More personal comments...

4. The first time someone was put on ignore for suggesting neutral language.  I have never encountered a poster so afraid to discuss things.