As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do. (or why it's ok for parents to question)

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I support public education with safeguards and parental permission requirements around certain topics and practices. 

Me too.

[Black Dog]

21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I support public education with safeguards and parental permission requirements around certain topics and practices. 

Most people would. The devil is in the details.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It has been labled on this forum that this situation is a mental disorder. It isn't, but it is a real condition.

It isn't called a mental disorder anymore. It never stopped being one, however.

Activists pushed for a name change, to curb the stigma. Used shame and pressure to get it to stick, vs facts backing their claim.

Sorry, but if a woman told me she wanted to cut her breasts off because she's a man, this is no different than someone thinking they are sumo wrestlers while being a skeleton with anorexia. Totally different in terms of the disorder, but nonetheless a disorder.

 

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

For the record you did waste my time here

I only tried to answer your questions fairly. But hey, I don't want to waste anyone's time, so will leave you bandy it about here with the rest of the gang.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Black Dog said:

You're kinda glossing over the fact that legally requiring teachers inform parents of any changes to the student's gender identity/presentation regardless of the kid's wishes will result in a non-zero number of kids getting abused or kicked out of their homes.

You would have to prove that a) it's true and b) that if the parents find out later about it AND that the kids LIED to them while telling others that this is LESS likely to result in that outcome.

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I'm not assuming any of that. I'm stating that there are numerous specific cases where a kid may not want their parents to know things about their gender or sexual identity because of the potential for abuse.

If the children have real abuse concerns report it to the police or ministry and deal with it. The number of kids who are ACTUALLY physically mistreated or kicked out of their homes for being trans is about zero.

However - most kids assume their parents will be "mad" or might be angry even though that's not the case at all. The vast majority of kids are afraid to tell their parents not because of a genuine fear of physical harm or being expelled from the home but because they are afraid their parents will disapprove and they don't know how to deal with that.  In fact - most parents don't react that way.

However - the vast vast majority of kids report considering suicide. The absolute best way to prevent that is a supportive home.  So - what you're REALLY doing by not telling parents is putting the kid at risk of suicide.  

It's 100 percent safer to go to the parents, have a discussion, point out the risks, and get that ball rolling than it is to have the kids suffer believing their parents won't accept them when in fact almost all do. Then the parents can look at where to go from there. Even if it's "we won't let you transition medially till you're old enough to be sure, but we'll support you now".

Why should children risk suicide just to satisfy YOUR virtue signalling?

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I only tried to answer your questions fairly. But hey, I don't want to waste anyone's time, so will leave you bandy it about here with the rest of the gang.

Maybe if you acknowledged that, it would help our future exchanges.  

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe if you acknowledged that, it would help our future exchanges.  

Do you ever notice, Mike, that somehow all your problems are other people's?

He's "Wasting your time" because you don't like his answers.

I'm a bad person because i'm not 'on topic' enough for you even tho when asked what about the topic you'd like to discuss you had no answers.

It's never you - it's everyone else who ruins it for you.

Maybe it's not everyone else Mike.  Maybe YOU are the problem and maybe you need to make some changes to make conversations with you work.

 

Maybe if you acknowledged that it would help with future exchanges  

[Michael Hardner]

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

He's "Wasting your time" because you don't like his answers.

 

No. He does things like say I rarely provide cites, then asks for one that I already provided pages ago and referred to.

I think you guys don't understand that. I just want a good argument, and I care about the public sphere.

 

Public's fear 😨

[Guest]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's never you - it's everyone else who ruins it for you.

"Pointing fingers at others is easy. Taking responsibility, is hard".

He'd also realize that people are less likely to bend to his whim (or accept his stance regardless of whether its correct or not) when he approaches them like this.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

"Pointing fingers at others is easy. Taking responsibility, is hard".

He'd also realize that people are less likely to bend to his whim (or accept his stance regardless of whether its correct or not) when he approaches them like this.

Again, I want a good argument. 

To that end, what's good for the goose is good for the Hardner.  Said poster has landed criticisms of me that I have humbly accepted, as of others.  You guys seem to not realize that.

Discussion isn't a zero sum game.

Adding:

My first post to YOU on this thread is a concession that your POV is gaining traction in the rational liberal sphere.  Again, this is a good thing for public dialogue, and addresses a problem you have talked about frequently.

 

"With this article, the liberal public sphere finally has a starting point to begin discussing this without being seen as reactionary.

 

This is a good thing for people who share your viewpoint."

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Again, I want a good argument. 

I couldn't care less if the argument is good or bad. As long as the topic at hand is being debated intelligently.

Thats how you learn, thats how one grows.

If you pick on the arbitrary, it becomes harder.

I follow rules of engagement, unless it no longer applies to who I am debating with.

I can have respectful heated debates with quite a few posters here. Agreeing with you is not a prerequisite. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

My first post to YOU on this thread is a concession that your POV is gaining traction in the rational liberal sphere.

It may not come as a surprise to you, that I have been liberal my entire life.

I don't feel I associate with liberals anymore, albeit the rational ones I get along with just fine.

Trudeau is about as rational as I am Chinese.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

1. I couldn't care less if the argument is good or bad. As long as the topic at hand is being debated intelligently.

2. Trudeau is about as rational as I am Chinese.

1.  That's good to hear.  And interesting.  I was thinking "good" and "intelligent" were synonymous but you are right they aren't.  We're in wordplay here, but out of healthy curiosity what do you see as good/bad vs intelligent/dumb.  Is there such a thing as a non-intelligent "good" discussion or and intelligent "bad" one ?

2. The thing is.... you don't actually *know* what the man is like.  He's a pitchman for an organization that will necessarily be at odds with some part of his personality, him being human. 

There are umpteen examples of this, but one that struck me was George HW Bush's campaign where he portrayed himself as a "God" type guy then ditched that when it didn't work.  The "real" man can be seen only with a peek behind the curtains.  Such as when GHW Bush - at a supermarket campaign event - shoed delight at witnessing a cashier scanning grocery items.  Clearly he hadn't been in a supermarket recently and his staff tried to downplay the events of the moment.

[Black Dog]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You would have to prove that a) it's true and b) that if the parents find out later about it AND that the kids LIED to them while telling others that this is LESS likely to result in that outcome.

 

I don't have to do either of those things, actually.

 

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If the children have real abuse concerns report it to the police or ministry and deal with it

Yeah I'm sure the cops or CPS would be very responsive in a case where the abuse hasn't happened yet.,

Quote

. The number of kids who are ACTUALLY physically mistreated or kicked out of their homes for being trans is about zero.

You can't be retarded enough to actually believe this.

Quote

However - most kids assume their parents will be "mad" or might be angry even though that's not the case at all. The vast majority of kids are afraid to tell their parents not because of a genuine fear of physical harm or being expelled from the home but because they are afraid their parents will disapprove and they don't know how to deal with that.  In fact - most parents don't react that way.

Maybe most parents don't but some will. Hell, I bet there's posters on this board who would kick their kids out for being trans.

Quote

However - the vast vast majority of kids report considering suicide. The absolute best way to prevent that is a supportive home.  So - what you're REALLY doing by not telling parents is putting the kid at risk of suicide.  

We're not talking about supportive homes here.

Quote

 

It's 100 percent safer to go to the parents, have a discussion, point out the risks, and get that ball rolling than it is to have the kids suffer believing their parents won't accept them when in fact almost all do. Then the parents can look at where to go from there. Even if it's "we won't let you transition medially till you're old enough to be sure, but we'll support you now".

Why should children risk suicide just to satisfy YOUR virtue signalling?

 

Not one cite for this belief. Incredible.

[Moonbox]

32 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

You can't be retarded enough to actually believe this.

You ain't seen nothing yet.  😉

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I was thinking "good" and "intelligent" were synonymous

They aren't. 

I have had debates with low IQ individuals, who respected the rules of engagement. The debates were good, as ideas were exchanged.

No moralizing or making everything about one's character. You stood for something, and debated based on it, avoiding personal attacks and insults which showcase a lack of a mastery of the subject matter. It was beautiful. 

Me and the wife are polar opposite politically on several key issues. I hate some of her stances, she hates some of mine. 

Yet we can still exchange ideas while vehemently disagreeing with one another.

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The thing is.... you don't actually *know* what the man is like.

He isn't really allowed to speak off his short leash, but you can clearly tell a lot about him if you're observant.

 

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

 

1. I have had debates with low IQ individuals, who respected the rules of engagement. The debates were good, as ideas were exchanged.

2. No moralizing or making everything about one's character. You stood for something, and debated based on it, avoiding personal attacks and insults which showcase a lack of a mastery of the subject matter. It was beautiful. 

 

 

1. Ok
2. Ok - but what do you do if someone posts a clear contradiction ?  You just end the discussion and walk away ?  What if they write that I believe in individual rights, then post right after that people shouldn't be allowed to say certain words and they stand by it and refuse to acknowledge it ?  Doesn't that veer into personal comment ?
 

[herbie]

On 2/8/2024 at 2:58 AM, Michael Hardner said:

The narrative that the teachers put the idea on the kid's head is fiction.  

As if the idea that banning puberty blockers until people have already gone through puberty makes any sense either.... or politicians overruling patients choices supported by both doctors and the parents too.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

but what do you do if someone posts a clear contradiction ? 

I pick apart the logic? 

Just like if your significant other makes you angry. You can point out what was done, and how it made you feel, or you can let them know how horrible of a person that they are, providing zero context.

Which one do you think will be likelier to get your point across?

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Doesn't that veer into personal comment ?

I would stick to the point and topic, and the faulty logic in their point. I just don't understand the need to make a debate personal. 

I don't care about your character in debating you. I care about your argument. 

My wife felt Rodrigo Duterte was justified in killing thousands of people. I tried to get her to see why the west felt it was wrong. She got me to understand how corrupt her country was, and how the lack of strict leadership always wound up driving up crime and bureaucratic corruption. 

Police extorting citizens for cash was nothing new. Using their power to dismiss any consequence.

Drug lords.

Had she articulated personally, it would have turned the debate into an argument. She has strong politicians in her family like I do.

She articulates surgically. You're free to disagree but she won't change her opinion to please you.

I find so many make character attacks because they can't make a better argument. If your argument is well articulated, it speaks for itself.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I don't have to do either of those things, actually.

 

Well that's certainly true - you can choose to look like an uneducated doof.

Quote

Yeah I'm sure the cops or CPS would be very responsive in a case where the abuse hasn't happened yet.,

Literally happens every day.

Quote

You can't be retarded enough to actually believe this.

Ahhhh yes  - you're "go to" when you know you're wrong and can't defend your position.

Quote

Maybe most parents don't but some will. Hell, I bet there's posters on this board who would kick their kids out for being trans.

Pretty close to zero - and lets be fair, some teachers will use hiding it from parents to sexually exploit the kids. It's rarer but theres' lots of cases of teacher's seducing kids.  So risks either way.

Quote

We're not talking about supportive homes here.

Yeah we are.  It's the lefties who are making the claim that no right wing home is supportive. Which just isnt true.

 

Quote

Not one cite for this belief. Incredible.

You mean your hate filled bigoted statement above?  Yeah - well - we didn't really think you had one so no surprises.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You ain't seen nothing yet.  😉

LOLOL - oh i FORGOT about this part - every time you wind up looking like a m0r0n arguing with me in another thread you spend several days following me around desperately trying you make yourself feel better with cheezy insults  

LOL - well go on and post how unfair it is i post so often,  how my pointing out your behavior when you fail is the same as having to tell you that you failed, and  how you're just a generally miserable bigot    We both know you're gonna it's not like you're suddenly going to become mentally hinged or something  

[Moonbox]

Poor, fragile little muppet.  

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Poor, fragile little muppet.  

Awww muffin   you go have a cookie and a nap, you'll be fine   Hissy fits take a lot out of you, we all know  that  

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

 

I don't care about your character in debating you. I care about your argument. 

 

Ok, but here's the next level:

People who look at your post in the context of your past posts.

I do this to you and people do it to me.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

People who look at your post in the context of your past posts.

I see this as those who look at people who were alive during the slavery years, by today's standards.

Like, genuinely painting them as disgusting reprehensible people, when there were wealthy and black slave owners, too. But if they were alive then, they wouldn't have done something that disgusting.

It's moralizing, vs debating on topic.

I look at the post at face value. I debate on what is currently being discussed. I couldn't care less what you said 2 years ago. 

To constantly crop and edit posts made 15 years ago, is just a lazy attempt at dismissing one's opinion, as you're trying to make a moral argument that this person's opinion holds no weight based on that past (vs their argument). 

You have nothing to bring to the actual debate, so have to go at other debates which were closed or no longer relevant to grasp at straws.

Sure, some people do it all the time, but someone good at debate will pick you apart at what you're saying in the moment.

I see someone picking a post made 5 years ago, as truly having no argument right now.

I was married to a woman like this. Pulled stuff from 6 years ago, which made whatever you were saying null and void. No issues were ever resolved and the simple turned complicated. The peaceful, turned toxic and what should have been a simple request, becomes a yelling match.

The current wife looks at what I did, points it out, tells me how it made her feel, and *shockingly*, would get an immediate apology in me realizing what I did, and we move on with our lives, minus the behavior that created the argument in the first place.

The latter is how arguing with a person with a high IQ looks like.

I have never raised my voice at the current wife, and vice versa.

Ideas are exchanged.

Debating with someone with a lower IQ is like arguing about the earth being flat with a child that is petulant.

They choose to make it personal and about morals and whines about the return fire, and its like that same child arguing the stove isn't hot when you tell them not to touch it, and get burnt.

If you're looking for sympathy, it's under S in the dictionary.