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

[OftenWrong]

Getting back to your comments.

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They don't push these things until there's a preponderance of support. 

Support from whom exactly? Nobody asked me. 

I didn't see no referendum question. Am sure there are many who don't support the feds domineering methods of control over certain institutions. Here is an example of how it's being done.

CAMPUS WATCH: University of Waterloo seeking “gender-fluid” people to fill DEI positions

"The University of Waterloo was criticized online over its Canada Research Chairs DEI job postings."

Further on:

"The University of Waterloo told True North it is 'using the language outlined in the federal requirement.'"

I bolded the significant part. I don't know what they're referring to, but it says REQUIREMENT. Now whether that means or else you don't get the funding or don't get accreditation doesn't really matter. It's the liberal government imposing their ideological will in the form of performance standards, whether they are needed or not. Whether they make sense or not. These solutions do not address the real problem, only cover it up and in doing so create a new set of problems.

It's like putting lipstick on a pig.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

 

1. Support from whom exactly? Nobody asked me.  I didn't see no referendum question. Am sure there are many who don't support the feds domineering methods of control over certain institutions. Here is an example of how it's being done.

2. CAMPUS WATCH: University of Waterloo seeking “gender-fluid” people to fill DEI positions

"The University of Waterloo was criticized online over its Canada Research Chairs DEI job postings."

Further on:

"The University of Waterloo told True North it is 'using the language outlined in the federal requirement.'"

3. It's like putting lipstick on a pig.

1. Polling.
2. Well, Gaad Saad, Jordan Petson and TNC are trolls but unless they're lying and I doubt they are, then quota positions have to be looked at hard.  As in - why are you excluding people ?  I'm of course a little suspicious of reports from trolls - and you should be too.  In the past on this board we have been told about this phenomenon only to find out the position was for a "traditional medicine woman who can talk about her background" etc.   Or these are new supplementary positions created as ambassadors for recruiting etc.  But in the end... the message of the trolls is implicit and valid, and here it is: don't ever ask a white person to give an inch, or they'll be on you quick, flushed with outrage.  But yes, my position is exclusionary hiring is dead wrong.
3. Pigs look better in lipstick.

Anyway, this is thread drift.  I like you so I'll dance with you a bit, but I'd like to get back to the OP topic, which is significant as a liberal concession that something might need a systemic correction.  Many trolls will kick their heels up in an outrage shreiking that "this is what we have been telling you" but ... maybe they can learn that some quiet facts in the place of shreiking will actually get you noticed sometimes.

The topic at hand has so little objectivity and open-mindedness... 

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Polling.
2. Well, Gaad Saad, Jordan Petson and TNC are trolls but unless they're lying and I doubt they are, then quota positions have to be looked at hard.  As in - why are you excluding people ?  I'm of course a little suspicious of reports from trolls - and you should be too.  In the past on this board we have been told about this phenomenon only to find out the position was for a "traditional medicine woman who can talk about her background" etc.   Or these are new supplementary positions created as ambassadors for recruiting etc.  But in the end... the message of the trolls is implicit and valid, and here it is: don't ever ask a white person to give an inch, or they'll be on you quick, flushed with outrage.  But yes, my position is exclusionary hiring is dead wrong.
3. Pigs look better in lipstick

No need to disparage the link or sources. My reason for bringing that up was to show how the Fed is behind this and how they are making it stick. If universities are the bastion of progressive liberal thought, they should need no goading to give it support. In fact they should be leading it, not following. But the fact is, there is no problem there (at Uni's), or rather, there is none that these actions truly solve. There MAY be a problem in that research chair positions are mostly filled by male-dominated whites, but only if you choose to look at it with a racist lens. Hence what I call a purely cosmetic fix. The real reason why there are so few non-whites in these positions must be something deeper.

Am not even going to try and address the part about excluding cis-genders from applying for positions in STEM and only accepting the 'gender fluid'. It is simply bizarre. Obnoxious could be another word. Some might even say utterly stupid. But that's yer government in action for ya.

Edited February 5, 2024 by OftenWrong

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

1. No need to disparage the link or sources.
 

1. Yes, there is actually.  We have venerable and respected institutions who are calling out the situation already.  We don't need trolls, period.  They f*ck up the discussion.  They should be mostly ignored but take the report and look for background analysis elsewhere.
 
As for the rest, there may be something afoot.   We have enough to do on this thread with the OP posting. 

[herbie]

We're seeing the argument that teaching children something exists is brainwashing them into doing it, same as the tired argument that sex ed encourages kids to have sex. That hiding (or denying) it from them prevents it or makes it go away.

"Children" are not getting these options simply because they ask for it, the extremely few that do go through many hoops, panels, assessments and almost all with the consent of the parents.

The entire concept that it's "to protect children" is utter nonsense to pander to the extremely few loud unsupportive parents who simply want to say NO to the kid.
Perpetuated by the usual social regressives who think that because they themselves have even heard about it, believe it is a common and regular occurrence.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why do you care if someone wants to exersize their rights over their own healthcare?

An adult making a life altering choice? No issue. 

A child? I can't even start on how many things could go wrong.

There is a reason why children can't vote, drive, get tattoos or just about make any life or adult decisions.

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Do you believe a teenager should not receive surgery to correct a cleft lip?

This is a horrible comparison. Repairing a cleft lip of a two year old, is a good idea or at least doesn't sound bad unless the surgery itself is dangerous to them.

Removing a toddlers genitals or surgically modifying them to the tune of literally castration should they change their mind, is a horrible idea.

Any policy maker worth their salt, would see to it that it never became legal below a certain age.

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Do you believe a teenager should not receive surgery to correct a cleft lip?

A 12 year should. 10 year old. Heck, even a 5 year old. I can't think of an age where this is inappropriate, unless surgery itself, is risky as mentioned.

I can easily think of an age where genital surgeries to change gender would be highly inappropriate. 

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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?

I think you technically have painted the picture without doing so deliberately, as to why school boards and governments shouldn't decide for a parent.

Your point while we'll natured, is not logical. Ironically,  even.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, herbie said:

We're seeing the argument that teaching children something exists is brainwashing them into doing it

Not quite. Normalizing mental health illness isn't teaching existence.

Teaching kids gender is on a spectrum, which is unlimited, is crossing the line between political activism and fact. Not teaching existence.

32 minutes ago, herbie said:

that sex ed encourages kids to have sex.

I don't know of a soul wanting sex ed to make itself shown on more TV shows, commercials and and on passport options to feel included. Nobody in the history of humanity would feel having a creepy teacher putting a condom on a banana would encourage promiscuity. 

34 minutes ago, herbie said:

That hiding (or denying) it from them prevents it or makes it go away.

No. Make it an honest presentation. 

36 minutes ago, herbie said:

few loud unsupportive parents 

Not all kids who feel they are trapped in the wrong body, are.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But using "God" to convince people of a course of action is kind of foolish if you don't know whether they believe.

It is not foolish.  If people want to condemn themselves for eternity, that is their choice.  I have done my part by speaking God's word to mankind on the subject.  It is not up to me to analyze what everyone believes and come up with some kind of psychological argument.  I simply state the fact of what God says and if anyone doesn't believe in God that is their problem, not mine.  Thanks anyway.

[Michael Hardner]

46 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. It is not foolish.  If people want to condemn themselves for eternity, that is their choice.  I have done my part by speaking God's word to mankind on the subject.  It is not up to me to analyze what everyone believes and come up with some kind of psychological argument. 

2. I simply state the fact of what God says and if anyone doesn't believe in God that is their problem, not mine.  Thanks anyway.

1. Is your goal to convince them on policy or convert them?  Pick one.

2. You're probably doing more to convince people that your views on transgender people rely on a sky-man who sits on a golden throne, therefore fringe.

[Zeitgeist]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Getting back to your comments.

Support from whom exactly? Nobody asked me. 

I didn't see no referendum question. Am sure there are many who don't support the feds domineering methods of control over certain institutions. Here is an example of how it's being done.

CAMPUS WATCH: University of Waterloo seeking “gender-fluid” people to fill DEI positions

"The University of Waterloo was criticized online over its Canada Research Chairs DEI job postings."

Further on:

"The University of Waterloo told True North it is 'using the language outlined in the federal requirement.'"

I bolded the significant part. I don't know what they're referring to, but it says REQUIREMENT. Now whether that means or else you don't get the funding or don't get accreditation doesn't really matter. It's the liberal government imposing their ideological will in the form of performance standards, whether they are needed or not. Whether they make sense or not. These solutions do not address the real problem, only cover it up and in doing so create a new set of problems.

It's like putting lipstick on a pig.

The push for DEI is the program for the infiltration of alternative lifestyles.  It’s simply empowering the advocates of narcissism.  That’s what the Pride Movement ultimately represents.  It’s pride in whatever I want and feel like.  It’s the diabolical “Do as thou wilt.”  It’s the return of the demonic that roamed Nazi Europe during the Holocaust.

If you fall to call out the evil in the world, you actually become evil.  Some of you might know the scripture from Ezekial.

Sadly, Canada is so soaked in its own self-loathing death cult that all new offences are simply added to the abomination:  MAID, abortion, divorce, hard drugs, non-traditional families, etc.

DEI is an extremely destructive force because it strips away people’s basic humanity as equal and sacred in the image of God, and instead reduces people to superficial identity groups and places them in a hierarchical order with some as better than others.   Remind you of anything?

It’s also dangerous because it pits these groups against each other and makes their members slaves to things over which they have no control: race, gender, etc., rather than simply saying everyone has value and is loved.

 

Edited February 6, 2024 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Is your goal to convince them on policy or convert them?  Pick one.

2. You're probably doing more to convince people that your views on transgender people rely on a sky-man who sits on a golden throne, therefore fringe.

Yes religion is being cast out.  Don’t you see it?  You’re helping it to happen with your comments.  Be careful, because if it isn’t Biblical teachings and “sky God” guiding how we live, what is?  LGBTQ+?   That’s it right?  Replace the crucifixes with rainbows.  Life is centred in the ego rather than God.  

Edited February 6, 2024 by Zeitgeist

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. You're probably doing more to convince people that your views on transgender people rely on a sky-man who sits on a golden throne, therefore fringe.

Nonsense.  God is real and his word is absolutely true.  What people believe about it is up to them.

I don't have the power change people or convert them.  Only God can do that.

If you are relying on human reasoning or humanism to convince a non-believer to believe God's word on LGBT/trans issues, it is a waste of time.  It will not work.  They will always come up with an argument.  It would be like trying to debate with the Devil on the Devil's terms.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Nonsense.  God is real and his word is absolutely true.  What people believe about it is up to them.

I don't have the power change people or convert them.  Only God can do that.

If you are relying on human reasoning or humanism to convince a non-believer to believe God's word on LGBT/trans issues, it is a waste of time.  It will not work.  They will always come up with an argument.  It would be like trying to debate with the Devil on the Devil's terms.

Hardner doesn’t seem to believe God is real.  He treats it as metaphor and storytelling.  What he doesn’t realize is that the Word is God.   You can’t live against the Word without living against God.  I understand that there are many interpretations of scripture, but there is also much clarity and consensus on meaning.  It you don’t recognize the values within it, what do you value?

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Yes religion is being cast out.  Don’t you see it?  You’re helping it to happen with your comments.  

2. Be careful, because if it isn’t Biblical teachings and “sky God” guiding how we live, what is?  LGBTQ+?   That’s it right?  Replace the crucifixes with rainbows.  Life is centred in the ego rather than God.  

1. When was it actually a major aspect of policy discussion in public life?  Not really in my lifetime.  Evangelicals who are new to politics seem to think it's relevant.

2. Jesus said "Bro, you do you."

 

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If you are relying on human reasoning or humanism to convince a non-believer to believe God's word on LGBT/trans issues, it is a waste of time.  It will not work.  

Then why do you try?  

Or are you trying to convince pro LGBTQ... evangelicals? 🤔

[impartialobserver]

If my kid thought he/she was trans.. i would listen but there would no surgery, drugs, counseling until they were of age to make that decision for themselves. Things tend to be a bit clearer at 20 (or so) than at 12. 

For us or against them logic shows that one has a profoundly low amount of logic. I can be not religious and simply not adhere to some thing. That does not mean that I advocate against religion. I have my life without it and if you have yours with it.. have at it. Do not let my lack of belief change your ways. 

Edited February 6, 2024 by impartialobserver

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Hardner doesn’t seem to believe God is real.  He treats it as metaphor and storytelling.  What he doesn’t realize is that the Word is God.   You can’t live against the Word without living against God.  I understand that there are many interpretations of scripture, but there is also much clarity and consensus on meaning.  

2. If you don’t recognize the values within it, what do you value?

1. Exactly right.  Word salads with holy seasoning turn into nonsense once they exit your mind via the mouth or keyboard.

2. I do ethics/morality the hard way, with my heart and mind

 

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. When was it actually a major aspect of policy discussion in public life?  Not really in my lifetime.  Evangelicals who are new to politics seem to think it's relevant.

2. Jesus said "Bro, you do you."

 

Nope. You’re revealing your ignorance and crassness.  It’s a major aspect of policy discussion because it literally is shaping the way our entire society lives.  What is the purpose of a coupling?  Sex? Family?  All of these are cornerstones of society: fertility, the family unit, commitment sanctified and virtuous. Be careful what you mock.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

1. it literally is shaping the way our entire society lives.  

2. What is the purpose of a coupling?  Sex? Family?  All of these are cornerstones of society: fertility, the family unit, commitment sanctified and virtuous. Be careful what you mock.

1. It's a cultural force, but it's not part of our public dialogue on such things.  Sermons happen in private spaces or worship, mainly because there's no point in telling people their morality is inferior and they should just listen to what you think.

2. Why should I be careful?  I try to be polite, but don't warn me or I will mock you.  Satan leaves index cards with witty insults under my pillow.

[OftenWrong]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's a cultural force, but it's not part of our public dialogue on such things.  Sermons happen in private spaces or worship, mainly because there's no point in telling people their morality is inferior and they should just listen to what you think.

2. Why should I be careful?  I try to be polite, but don't warn me or I will mock you.  Satan leaves index cards with witty insults under my pillow.

Speaking of being on topic wrt the OP...    

It seems you don't mind slandering others deeply held personal beliefs. Meanwhile my comments are much closer to the thread topic material itself, in that I showed that the sudden appearance of transgender debate in Canadian society stems from the fed, not from a need for change by the grassroots community. There actually is no big problem with gay rights in Canada that needs to be fixed, you yourself lamented the level of attention it gets. I showed you where it comes from, and how government leverages its power over institutions like schools, big media outlets to force their ideological agenda on Canadians. Polls be damned.

You take a poll in the big city, take another in the country and get a totally different answer.

That's why I believe it will go away substantially, but not COMPLETELY, when this Liberal government falls.

In short, it is coming almost exclusively from THEM. 

Edited February 6, 2024 by OftenWrong

[Zeitgeist]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's a cultural force, but it's not part of our public dialogue on such things.  Sermons happen in private spaces or worship, mainly because there's no point in telling people their morality is inferior and they should just listen to what you think.

2. Why should I be careful?  I try to be polite, but don't warn me or I will mock you.  Satan leaves index cards with witty insults under my pillow.

Okay I’ll put the culture war in the most favourable terms I can for an atheist/secularist.  Actually I’ll let Nial do it.  His critique is more Rousseau and Enlightenment based.  It’s the idea that man is born free, basically. Of course one has to care about the value of a person, which is really a religious idea of the sacrosanct individual.

 

[Michael Hardner]

58 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

 

1. It seems you don't mind slandering others deeply held personal beliefs. 

2. Canadian society stems from the fed, not from a need for change by the grassroots community.

3. You take a poll in the big city, take another in the country and get a totally different answer.

4. That's why I believe it will go away substantially, but not COMPLETELY, when this Liberal government falls.In short, it is coming almost exclusively from THEM. 

1. Only if they insist on foisting them on me.

2. I think the quota thing is a cause of concern, but it's not the root of what happens here. Trans rights were coming, there were votes in the Harper government and votes in other countries... Trudeau's sanctimonious attitude gives the whole thing a tone that it wouldn't otherwise have though.

3. Yeah they take polls of a bunch of demographics.  Liberals unveiled gay marriage as this giant progressive thing, which they somehow a previously shot down despite being in government. Lo and behold they brought it in Right after public support reached 51%.

4. Sure because Trudeau won't be there to give it a tone. But nothing's really going to change, don't you think? Substantially everything will continue I'm pretty sure.

[GroundskeeperWillie]

12 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

I don't know about referring to students by their preferred pronouns, however for something as drastic as surgery, the parents need to be informed about it.

[Fluffypants]

For me its all about that kids are impressionable and you start talking about LBGTQ issues, your just going to confuse them. They don't have the emotional maturity to understand attraction and romantic love and what feeling a gender means. They are barely aware of their own gender, they just know I am a boy or I am a girl, you don't know why but that is what people tell you.

The simple fact is that no one has any concept of what being the other sex "feels" like. I am male and I know I am male because I have male parts, I don't feel male I just feel like me. You are not capable of feeling like another gender because you don't what that means. You are just a confused person that for some reason feels wrong and now a days its just easier to say maybe you are the opposite sex instead of finding the right therapy to make you feel a modicum of normality.

Once your old enough I don't care if you wear a dress or wear a mascot uniform as long as you don't try to force me to feed your delusion.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

I don't know about referring to students by their preferred pronouns, however for something as drastic as surgery, the parents need to be informed about it.

Well here's the thing about pronouns.

The strong desire to switch pronouns to a gender that doesn't match your sex is a very strong indicator of gender dysphoria.  It's not always the case but it very often is.  That is a VERY serious problem which has been linked to substantially higher suicidal feelings in kids. Its a very very serious medical condition.

So - it would be like saying "oh yeah we found out 3 years ago your kid had cancer but didn't tell you".  That would NOT be ok. 

Parents need to know - they cannot give guidance, they cannot give support, they cannot investigate to make sure the feelings are solid OR properly arrange for the best treatment if they don't know.

Now - schools  could decide they'd like to offer be present or meet with the parents with the kid if that's what the kid wants to make it easier.  Schools can produce "What to do if your kid is trans" linformation and literature so parents know some options in case it's necessary.  But schools should NOT be keeping that info from parents.

And the whole argument on the 'trans' side is that if they tell their parents, some parents might be angry and react badly.  First - i very much doubt taht's likely but more importantly, for that to make sense they would have to believe that the parents would some how be LESS likely to be angry and react badly when they find out LATER that their kids are trans, but also they decided to lie and deceive them all these years while others around them knew.  Personally i wouldn't care if my kid was trans, but that second part.... that would be hard to get past.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Once your old enough I don't care if you wear a dress or wear a mascot uniform as long as you don't try to force me to feed your delusion.

Thats one of the main issues I have. 

Okay fine, I will call you miss. 

But the social pressure for this to go further. To allow such people to compete professionally as their identified gender. Going to prison as their identified gender.

Starbucks. I go to order a coffee, not to be taught a pronouns lesson, with your: "My pronouns are THEY/THEM" name tag.

If you have to go that far, just *maybe* the fact you look a certain way means a little more socially as this is what people will see. That's human nature. You can't change this with a name tag.

The level of entitlement that one bends a knee to how you feel inside.

In the real world. Nobody gives a f*** how you feel inside. About your baggage weighing you down. People have their own ghosts. Their own issues to deal with, that to deal with someone's dead weight self that can't start standing on their own. 

If you can't carry this without heavy handed support from strangers, you're already f***ed. The government won't help you, but will make you feel like it is for a vote.

Am black. In my community, am the whitest black person people have ever seen.

I had racist friends who felt comfortable with me. *That* white.

My credit score is immaculate. *That* wh...okay...I'll stop.

Nobody gives two f***s how that makes me feel.

I realized that lecturing people about my knowledge of black history, or my skin color was a waste of time.

I had to develop a thicker skin. I used humor to remove the power from the bully. I got bullied a lot.

I had to learn how to fight and defend myself.

Coupled with my humor, I could then roast a bully and fight them and humiliate them even worse. People left me alone.