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

[Zeitgeist]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes. Some people decided it was a topic for discussion, more accurately for the culture wars. That's why you're posting about it.

5. Maybe slightly? There's a trade off for everything and I think this one is pretty minor.

6. You keep talking past my point so I'll just stop.

7. Maybe so, but he took over the fight and led the conversation for a while there.

8. I think the catch phrase that applies here is we report, you decide?

1. I definitely did not say that. Also that's mostly not happening.

2. Well in this case I'm doing the opposite of that right?

 

1. Well you referenced abortions.

2. Wasn’t sure, but if that’s what you’re telling me now, that you oppose, okay.

[Zeitgeist]

30 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

People need to realise that there is a difference in the sense that if you follow the media you could be fooled to believe that all this woke and trans-stuff is something completely mainstream but if you actually go out to the real world you very rarely encounter these people. It is a very marginal group of people bigged up by the media.

Well, how many trans kids did you meet in your childhood?  How many are kids meeting today?  It’s an interesting rising trend that raises questions about the influence of messaging versus natural and even (especially?) environmental factors.  There are lots of hormones and chemicals in our water supply impacting fertility and hormone levels in kids.  I’d say these are indeed mainstream issues for kids today, and I don’t think that’s great.

[herbie]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If a government bans something that isn't happening and makes a big show of it, the it's about politics and virtue signaling not problem solving.

But listen to these guys, millions of prettens are being groomed by teachers to get surgeries as part of govt wokeness programs. All the so called facts are MSM lies, they heard the truth somewhere, everybody's talking about it.
It's a parental right to not know or deny their children's wants and blame teachers, govt, doctors for discovering them.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes. Some people decided it was a topic for discussion, more accurately for the culture wars. That's why you're posting about it.

Wrong.

Some people decided it was the new way, and there was pushback. Pushback isn't the same thing as "started it". 

Quote

5. Maybe slightly? There's a trade off for everything and I think this one is pretty minor.

Slightly?

I think that girls don't want boys/young men in their bathroom. 

It's odd that the culture that calls everything "rape" would also put men in the girls bathroom. 

If it was Trump's weird plan to get boys into the girls' bathroom you'd freak out. 

Quote

6. You keep talking past my point so I'll just stop.

I dunno what your point was. As a parent I'd always consult with a Dr or counsellor, but if they tried to go behind my back and make a decision with my Gr 3 kid there'd be trouble.

Quote

7. Maybe so, but he took over the fight and led the conversation for a while there.

 hoped that he'd do better. The US doesn't have many reasonable candidates and he was one. 

I don't know how badly he hurt his future chances. 

Quote

8. I think the catch phrase that applies here is we report, you decide?

I don't think the media 'reports'. I think they 'narrate'. 

[CdnFox]

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I guess you didn't read the Globe article?

"In her announcement on social media Wednesday, Ms. Smith said Alberta will not permit top and bottom gender-reassignment surgeries for people younger than 18 years old.  

In reality, no bottom surgeries are performed on minors anywhere in Canada."

Let's do like the Conservatives and move on.  I'm heartened that Poilievre, has he gets closer to power, is shying away from this rabble/rebel rousing stuff.

How is that relevant to what i said? The comment we disagreed on is where i said:

If the gov't bans something that isn't happening and it doesn't affect anything just shut up and get on with your day. Trying to make ANY news about it just feeds the stupid.

But that's not what happened here at the tend of the day.

Your NUMBERED reply to that exact quote was "That's exactly what happened. If you read the Globe and mail article, there are some points explaining why."

So this is the globe points you mentioned.

Can you explain how that quote shows that they are banning something that NEVER HAPPENED?!?!?

 

Why do you feel the need to be dishonest like that mike?  They did NOT ban something that 'never happened' nor does that article make that claim, which is good because it would be untrue.

YOU made that claim and i refuted it.

And this is why people have a difficult time listening to the left any more on issues like this. If you have an HONEST concern to share then present it, but no more of this bait and switch kind of trickery pls.

[OftenWrong]

50 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well, how many trans kids did you meet in your childhood?  How many are kids meeting today?  It’s an interesting rising trend that raises questions about the influence of messaging versus natural and even (especially?) environmental factors.  There are lots of hormones and chemicals in our water supply impacting fertility and hormone levels in kids.  I’d say these are indeed mainstream issues for kids today, and I don’t think that’s great.

Anyone who's raised kids will be keenly aware that they are very naive and easily fooled into doing anything. Heck, they even had to censor cartoons so they wouldn't club each other in the head with a shovel.

That's called vulnerable to suggestion.

Now, I'ma flood you with information to make you uncertain if you're a boy or a girl. And you will be.

I think that's what parents want, the right to change the channel.

[GroundskeeperWillie]

On 2/3/2024 at 10:45 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

The thing is, a child knows if they are in the wrong body by the time they are in their early teens.

Apparently, we don't allow minors to drink alcohol or drive a car, but according to you, they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to cut off their penis or breasts (permanent, life-altering decisions).

[GroundskeeperWillie]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

It's a parental right to not know or deny their children's wants and blame teachers, govt, doctors for discovering them.

I think people are saying that there is societal pressure and subtle brainwashing aimed at kids that tries to put ideas in their heads that they might be in the wrong body.  

I also don't think there is anything wrong with parents denying their children's wants per se.  Parents routinely ignore their children's wants, such as wanting to eat candies instead of dinner, wanting to play computer games all day rather than doing homework, not wanting to go to school...etc etc.  All of these are wants but I think the parents would be very justified in denying them.  Kids are too young to know whether what they want is truly good for themselves.  Parents have to make certain decisions for their children and I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

[OftenWrong]

26 minutes ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

I think people are saying that there is societal pressure and subtle brainwashing aimed at kids that tries to put ideas in their heads that they might be in the wrong body.

It's also interesting that there are voices in the medical AND gay community that are against all the transgender rights for pre-pubescent children wokism spewing forth from, essentially the top. They say it is wrong for the same reason parents are saying it. They don't see the need to want to alter your bidy as essential to acceptance of one's inner feelings of sexual attraction and identification. In other words as one person said, 'I am a gay man and attracted to other men, and there is nothing wrong with that which needs correcting.'

Some are calling it "The new conversion therapy".

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Let's do like the Conservatives and move on.  I'm heartened that Poilievre, has he gets closer to power, is shying away from this rabble/rebel rousing stuff.

He may also simply be saying step back, let them fall on their own swords.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, this is a big part of Canada's national dialogue right now. Asking people to ignore it and move on is not possible. I put the blame for this (apparent distraction) squarely on one person - the Prime Minister.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

He may also simply be saying step back, let them fall on their own swords.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, this is a big part of Canada's national dialogue right now. Asking people to ignore it and move on is not possible. I put the blame for this (apparent distraction) squarely on one person - the Prime Minister.

Well he seems to be pretty happy to let the provinces deal with provincial stuff. remember this isn't the first province to pass these kinds  of laws and the last time justin got pissy about it PP's comment was that instead of butting in justin should butt out and let them deal with it.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Asking people to ignore it and move on is not possible.

2. I put the blame for this (apparent distraction) squarely on one person - the Prime Minister.

1. Fair enough.  I find people are generally unable to explain how they see this issue moving through public consultation.

People will post simple slogans about what they say is right, or express outrage.  Fascinatingly dull.  Or they will characterize types that they disagree with them.

2. Why not, everything else is his fault... Seriously, though, they did put forward C-16 and half the conservatives supported it, I think Bernier did also and I think Poilievre didn't vote.  If you can't get the conservatives to vote against it then why is Trudeau the bad guy here... Not sure.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

why is Trudeau the bad guy here... Not sure.

The fed is not doing what I would consider the status quo, they are clearly bent on social re-engineering of Canada. To what end I'm not sure. I would not be against some of the changes they have introduced if they were more well thought out. As it is, seems overly obsessed with making 'progress', but not interested in dealing with the fallout that affects Canadians. Things like the housing crisis come to mind as another example. Helping refugees and the poor is a good idea if done properly, but government bungling ends up creating more problems. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. The fed is not doing what I would consider the status quo, they are clearly bent on social re-engineering of Canada. To what end I'm not sure.

2. I would not be against some of the changes they have introduced if they were more well thought out.

3. As it is, seems overly obsessed with making 'progress', but not interested in dealing with the fallout that affects Canadians.

4. Things like the housing crisis come to mind as another example. Helping refugees and the poor is a good idea if done properly, but government bungling ends up creating more problems. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

1. Sure, but this is done on a continuum with changes to accommodate groups linked together, followed by pauses as those changes are enacted in social life.  We are in that phase now, from the changes resulting from the implementation of C-16 in 2017.  This is a long term process and both parties contribute to it.

2. It's more the details that have to be looked at, modified and so on in terms of practical considerations.  The initial rights accommodation seems to have been acceptable to most MPs, and roughly half the conservatives.

3. They don't push these things until there's a preponderance of support.  Their assertion that these are bold moves is just more PR.

4. Refugees are maybe 10% of the problem?  They're the most visible because they sleep outside.  Poilievre might reduce immigration some but I doubt that it will be much.

[Perspektiv]

On 2/3/2024 at 7:34 AM, Michael Hardner said:

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

I like how you call what was seen as factual about 10 years ago, medically is still seen as factual in the world, as sharing one's "viewpoint".

That is where the division comes from. Either you're "an ally or you're against us" is the worst possible stance to take for a group trying to integrate itself into society.

Homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder, initially. It clearly isn't as there isn't any treatment required to be gay. You can't ungay yourself. You can only live miserable, and closeted if trying to suppress.

It just is, in fact with many knowing so while very young. Effortlessly debunked.

Being trans is a whole other ball game. 

You're essentially telling a construction company director that someone from India can work on his site without a helmet or goggles, because it goes against how they feel, and expect to get hired. Convincing them its perfectly normal and safe, using force. Accusing dissenting views, as racism. Kirpan at metal detectors pre-boarding a flight? No problem. 

A turban for them makes them feel more included.

I get that these issues are sensitive, but Canada needs to find its balls.

No helmet, no goggles no steel toe boots, no job. No exception.

A Kirpan is a weapon. Banned on a flight. No exception. 

Being trans is a mental health issue.

People should not be d***s to people suffering from mental health issues. Their rights should be protected.

But to teach a child that they can be any gender they imagine. Throw on a dress, and voila! You're a girl. Anyone denying this, is transphobic. What?

I was served by a male at a cash, with an orange wig. Clearly was a wig, painted nails, beard and all, with a female name on his name tag.

I couldn't care less, I addressed her as miss, as am polite. Deep down thinking: "bro, what the f***." Everyone at that workplace now walking on eggshells whenever they see the orange shell to avoid accidentally misgendering someone you will instinctively identify as a male. This is human nature.

But again, expect the globe to play along no less.

Give me a break.

[Queenmandy85]

13 hours ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

Apparently, we don't allow minors to drink alcohol or drive a car, but according to you, they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to cut off their penis or breasts (permanent, life-altering decisions).

How would you react if, when you were in your teens, your parents decided you should have a sex change and you were opposed to it. Are you saying your parents knew better than you?

If a parent does not support their teenager in these rare situations, they are likely to lose their teenager either by the kid leaving home or committing suicide. Surgery is not going to happen until the individual is an adult. What is the harm when a teacher refers to a student by the name and pronoun the prefer? 

This whole issue is being driven by socialist "conservatives" who demand medical autonomy when it comes to their own phobia with a vaccine but want to deny the same freedom when it comes to women's healthcare or transexual men and women.

The term "social conservative is a misnomer. The proper term is communist.

[blackbird]

On 2/3/2024 at 10:45 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

The thing is, a child knows if they are in the wrong body by the time they are in their early teens. They don't need someone else to tell them. It is a rare condition. Unfortunately, even with the best parents, teenagers tend to be loath to tell their parents anything about sex or gender.  

Therein is your big mistake.   You assume that it is legitimate when a child thinks he/she is in the wrong body.

God created male and female.  It is pure fiction to think people are sometimes created in the "wrong body".

There are rare cases where a baby is born with some kind of deformity in their organs, but this is a different situation which doctors have to sort out and may try to repair.  But this is not for the purpose of changing a person's gender because some kid believes they are in the "wrong body".

This subject is best left to parents to deal with, not schools, psychiatrists, doctors, and politicians.  It is not their right or business.  The state should butt out of parental matters.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

1. I like how you call what was seen as factual about 10 years ago, medically is still seen as factual in the world, as sharing one's "viewpoint".

2. That is where the division comes from. Either you're "an ally or you're against us" is the worst possible stance to take for a group trying to integrate itself into society.

3. Homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder, initially. It clearly isn't as there isn't any treatment required to be gay. You can't ungay yourself. You can only live miserable, and closeted if trying to suppress. It just is, in fact with many knowing so while very young. Effortlessly debunked. Being trans is a whole other ball game.  You're essentially telling a construction company director that someone from India can work on his site without a helmet or goggles, because it goes against how they feel, and expect to get hired. Convincing them its perfectly normal and safe, using force. Accusing dissenting views, as racism. Kirpan at metal detectors pre-boarding a flight? No problem.  A turban for them makes them feel more included. I get that these issues are sensitive, but Canada needs to find its balls. No helmet, no goggles no steel toe boots, no job. No exception. A Kirpan is a weapon. Banned on a flight. No exception. 

4. Being trans is a mental health issue.

5. I was served by a male at a cash, with an orange wig. Clearly was a wig, painted nails, beard and all, with a female name on his name tag. I couldn't care less, I addressed her as miss, as am polite. Deep down thinking: "bro, what the f***." Everyone at that workplace now walking on eggshells whenever they see the orange shell to avoid accidentally misgendering someone you will instinctively identify as a male. This is human nature. But again, expect the globe to play along no less. Give me a break.

1. Ok, well I like how you ignore opposition to your opinions and thereby call it face.  Wait, no, I don't like that.
2. Agreed.
3. 5. You're dipping down into the content of the debate, and not in an area which I was engaging in.  I disagree with some of this, probably most.  But we have discussed already.
4. Which is alleviated by transition right ?  
 

[Perspektiv]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, well I like how you ignore opposition to your opinions

Gender identity disorder is an opinion?

The changing of its name in 2013 to appease people, an opinion? Softening "offensive" language, is an opinion?

It was a mental health issue in its name. Therefore telling people suffering from it something was wrong with them, by default.

This is wrong. However the name change has had activists push this notion that it no longer is a mental health issue. This is equally wrong and negligent (now we are talking opinion). The stigma should be combatted, not the fact that this is a mental health issue.

I personally know trans people who have attempted suicide. If you think playing pretend with someone who isn't low IQ and can see things for what it is is helpful, I don't know what to tell you.

Love and support, will hopefully give the child the confidence they need to deal with the realities that they will face. Reality being the world over hasn't changed. You can't stop human nature with softer wording. You end up hurting the trans community more, by being divisive in your wording socially. 

No different than being black, or any socially ostracized group.

I see it like BLM stating people like me deserve reparations. White people should take a knee and apologize to me. Divisive words that instead of getting me more respect, make me a bigger target. I make sure to distance myself from it as a result.

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Which is alleviated by transition right ?  

Not necessarily. 

I know transitioning trans people who still took attempts at their lives. 

My ex wife had dozens of trans besties, and they were more accepted in their community (Asian), but it was seen as guys being gay or calling them "ladyboys", or something to that effect. However, they didn't push back, so were just themselves to the fullest. Nobody bothers them.

They didn't push for society to see them as no different than a biological woman. This is what is causing so much push back. Anger.

Go to Thailand. Ladyboys there are often much more attractive than my wife, and I have no shame admitting this.

Tons of attractive trans women here. However, the stigma is worse.

Let them be. Protect them with laws. Stop gaslighting people.

 

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Gender identity disorder is an opinion?

2.  Not necessarily. 

3. Go to Thailand. Ladyboys there are often much more attractive than my wife, and I have no shame admitting this.

4. Protect them with laws. Stop gaslighting people.

 

1. Not that, just that people who generally oppose your viewpoint oppose facts in your opinion.  Am I right on that or no ?  Since my comment about your viewpoint was general, that's how I took it.  The part I cut out is more going on about an aspect of the subject I'm not talking about here.
2.  Ok.  But generally, irrespective of your and your wife's experiences it seems so.
3.  Ok.  This is another aspect to this... uh... issue... that I did not bring up, ie. whether your wife, whom I have never met, is more or less attractive than a trans woman in Thailand.
4.  Ok.  Not sure what the relevance is to the OP but I agree.

[Queenmandy85]

48 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

This is wrong. However the name change has had activists push this notion that it no longer is a mental health issue. This is equally wrong and negligent (now we are talking opinion). The stigma should be combatted, not the fact that this is a mental health issue.

"Don't you find it odd that plastic surgery can cure a mental disorder?" Quote from Felicity Huffman's character, Bree Osbourne, in Transamerica (2005)

Why do you care if someone wants to exersize their rights over their own healthcare? Do you oppose surgery to correct a cleft lip? Gender affirming surgery is corrective surgery. Do you believe a teenager should not receive surgery to correct a cleft lip?

As I asked earlier, if you are male and your parents decide to force you to be female, do you believe your parents should have that right?

Edited February 5 by Queenmandy85

[blackbird]

The LGBTQ activists and their liberal, left supporters ideology that a kid can change their gender is straight from the pit of Hell.  There is no such thing possible.  It is completely contrary to God's order and creation.

"26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."  Genesis 1:26-28  KJV

How is it possible to multiply and replenish the earth for trans and LGBTQ people?  It is not possible.  Therefore it is not a natural thing.  It is completely against God's order for mankind as stated in God's written revelation, the Bible.

 

Edited February 5 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. The LGBTQ activists and their liberal, left supporters ideology that a kid can change their gender is straight from the pit of Hell.  There is no such thing possible.  It is completely contrary to God's order and creation.

2. It is completely against God's order for mankind as stated in God's written revelation, the Bible.

 

1. Yeah but there are a lot of people who don't buy into "God".  If you think that that's a problem, you should work on that separately.  Divide and conquer, you know.  But using "God" to convince people of a course of action is kind of foolish if you don't know whether they believe.
2. An increasing number of us believe's God word is a nonsense book.  If you think that's wrongheaded, well then that's your project.  Get on to converting people.

[impartialobserver]

Hence why I have always thought that we should leave that decision to them and force them to wait until they are 18 or out of high school. Give some time for the flood of hormones, emotions, and such to settle down and shake out

 

[eyeball]

22 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You see the ideology dominating our disciplines through their various colleges of certification.

WTF are babbling about here, an NDP Party logo or Union Made stamp on the certificate?

It just never dawns on you people how infantile and silly you sound when you invoke these ridiculous statements.