User Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 1. I am not talking about activists, I'm talking about the medical/health experts only. I feel like the tactic of picking out extremists on the other side of an issue and painting their views as the central thesis of that side is not honest. And it's not argument from authority, it's trusting expertise and listening to opposing views and discussion from within that group. Except, you are doing the opposite, where you are not really engaging on the issues being pushed, most of which have little to do with the experts, as they are policy positions being supported by folks on the left. Example: An "expert" might find that masks are an important part of stopping contagious disease, and they publish studies showing their effectiveness. Politicians and bureaucrats are the ones that then choose how to enact laws and policies around this, maybe they say to people not to wear masks, they lie to them, because they want to protect mask supply. We are here arguing about why transgenders are a political issue, I point out why, I give you a huge list of things as to why... and you have reduced this to saying experts. The mask experts were not the ones who said to lie to people or to restrict public mask supplies. On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 2. I'm arguing meta, as in arguing about how we argue. You say that you know for sure things about the topic of transgender as sure as you know that gravity works (I think). That's what I'm talking about. Again, you have yet to explain why anything I have said here needs the additional context. On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 3. Sorry, I didn't mean "you" as in "user", I meant "you" as in "a person". OK On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 4. I'm really glad you said that. I agree that politics shouldn't lead in such areas - it should follow. That is not what I said. I am pointing out the differences here between policy that is driven by politicians and what "experts" do. There is no medical community to follow, because they are not experts in policy. On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 5. I doubt that the medical/psychological practitioners started working in this area after politicians brought it up. At some point, it ended up in the public sphere. I have some hunches as to how that happened but I don't have a full history. I have the history. To the point of this thread, it is those on the left pushing this onto society, and we are pushing back. That is why this is a political issue. On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 6. You seem to be saying that the politicians are more the ones "pushing" it - correct ? I haven't thought of that. It makes sense, but as I haven't heard of it. What's an example ? Politicians and those on the left that support them. I have already provided you a list of examples. -Politicians working to normalize kids being trans -Putting trans books in schools, the curriculum, policies to "affirm" children being trans in schools, even worse policies to hide this from parents, laws enacting these things -Putting trans kids into girls sports, telling girls they have to compete against boys -Putting trans kids into traditional girl spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, etc... -Putting these messages into DEI training that is mandated into all government agencies -Changing policies in the military to openly accept trans AND then also cover for their surgeries and other "affirming" care -Putting trans prisoners into prisons with women where they are sexually assaulted and forcing tax payers to pay for their "affirming" care -Forcing public officials to use any of the 1 million pronouns someone can choose for themselves, changing drivers licenses and other official documentation like birth certificates and passports to reflect a sex someone is not On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 7. It's only the point if it's getting as much attention as it deserves. I'll admit that that is subjective but I'm sure you agree that their are limits as to how much attention it should get either way, ie. we should devote much more attention from the medical side or we should devote zero political attention. Negligence is a problem, for sure. No, you don't get to say what my point is. I am telling you what my point is. You use language like "if" when there is no if. It is happening. On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 8. I don't think I am. I'm mostly making medical arguments. I never said negligence and poor practice doesn't happen, and I'm pretty sure of that. No, you are not mostly making medical arguments at all. This question followed my previous statement on your use of "if" There is no "if" it is happening. It is happening. You are seemingly acknowledging this now, but it doesn't explain why you keep using language like "if" before now. But hey, lets move forward, lets see if you keep doing this. On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 9. I'm mostly making meta- arguments. I can't argue with you, at least not yet, because I don't know what "pushing things onto children" means. Why do you keep doing this? I have answered this. I clearly explained this. I can keep copy and pasting for you though: -Politicians working to normalize kids being trans -Putting trans books in schools, the curriculum, policies to "affirm" children being trans in schools, even worse policies to hide this from parents, laws enacting these things -Putting trans kids into girls sports, telling girls they have to compete against boys -Putting trans kids into traditional girl spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, etc... -Putting these messages into DEI training that is mandated into all government agencies -Changing policies in the military to openly accept trans AND then also cover for their surgeries and other "affirming" care -Putting trans prisoners into prisons with women where they are sexually assaulted and forcing tax payers to pay for their "affirming" care -Forcing public officials to use any of the 1 million pronouns someone can choose for themselves, changing drivers licenses and other official documentation like birth certificates and passports to reflect a sex someone is not On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 11. And I would say you are putting an unwitting reader into a mode where they may think you are talking about young immature children. So - meta-wise - can we agree on clarifying language ? Why not ? It would make both of our arguments easier to figure out. There is no meta here. You are just keep avoiding that YOUR language made no distinction in age of the child. I don't have to agree to any clarifying language, but you can certainly clarify your own language if you want to. On 2/20/2025 at 5:59 AM, Michael Hardner said: 12. My argument is (while still meta, as we're speaking of the language of the discussion) that the term "child" is inexact enough to require us to define it before we engage. Or are you saying that there should be no distinction when we are talking about 3- or 17- year olds. Canada even has a legal distinction, did you know ? YOUR language made no distinction. I will repeat myself again, since you didn't address my point: "Your argument makes no distinction on age. So why does it stop at 3? Where is your line? We can't talk about only 17 year olds because you have not provided any reason to based on your own argument. " Quote
CdnFox Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 1 hour ago, SkyHigh said: I lose? yes. Badly. If that is your argument you lose. Of course if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll reply with an intelligent and meaningful rebuttal, either offering a different argument or explaining why you feel that one is valid. If I'm right you'll reply with some weak assed insult Quote This is why you are often such a poor and uninteresting interlocuteur, everything with you in zero sum. AAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!! LOL well thanks for the admission i guess And look at you, using your word of the day calendar to try to sound like you're smarter than a salted slug It's so cute when your kind pretends to be 'intellectual' Quote People with even a small amount of experience in high level decision-making pride themselves on their abilities to find common ground amongst people of different opinions and on being able to employ a charitable interpretation of others arguments, you fail miserably on both counts. If we follow your flawed zero sum analogy, you're scoring on your own net. School boards? Really? Then you should be just as outraged with school boards banning books they don't agree with, those trying to impose religious beliefs in schools.( Ie: both Louisiana and Oklahoma requirements to post the ten commandments in classrooms . Not to mention state GOVERNMENTS trying to put creationism on the same level as evolution), but you're not are you? because you only get your dander up when it goes against your juvenile presuppositions (as an example our last conversation was about how mean and insulting Trudeau saying that the US missed an opportunity to elect a progressive woman to the presidency was, but Trump saying Canada should be a state was simply a little joke. Still think that?) Now to the topic at hand. Pew research estimates the number of trans/nonbinary population of the US to be just shy of 50'000, with a fraction of them having had any kind of gender reassignment procedures and that fraction gets even smaller for those under 18( and in conversations we've had about gun control, you have said that 17 isn't really a child) Let me be clear I don't think anyone under 18 should be subjected to any procedure that could not be reversed if they wanted, but we're taking about a group that could probably be counted on two hands. Hardly cause for the outrage expressed by the conservative "mouvement" My point was and is that this is just a way for the Republicans to divert the attention of their voters from the fact they have no real solutions. For example Trump said 10 years ago he had a better health care plan two weeks away, yet today still has nothing but a concept of a plan, Trump ran on bringing down grocery prices (amongst others) and now as prices continue to rise he has no solutions, Trump vowed to drain the swamp yet Musk, and I could go on. In conclusion, in the greater scheme of the problems facing North America the trans issue is inconsequential as it effects an extremely small percentage of people, most just because of ignorance not only of science but how it feels to them based on bigoted religious beliefs. The fact that the best you had was school boards and no actual policy makers shows that all you have is your own bigoted feelings Blah blah blah me liberal me mad me can't make intelligent argument so me simply lash out. Sigh. All the finesse of a spastic toddler. Let me walk you through some basics. One of the many ways to explore various topics is to have a debate or a milder form of debate to put the ideas and theories around that subject under the microscope and test them in acid. How that works is one side takes a position and attempts to defend it. The other party takes a different position and attempts to defend that. To the back and forth the various ideas which are not able to stand up to reasoned and logical examination tend to be knocked to the Wayside and this process tends to continue until at the end of the day hopefully if all has gone well you are left with a few nuggets which cannot be refuted by either party or a few things which cannot be proven one way or another and are simply a matter of opinion upon which the two people must agree to disagree. This is a time-honored process and it works. You call it a zero-sum game because you Are inexperienced and poorly educated on the subject. The zero-sum game is something entirely different. Now if you're done crying and you've had your cookie in your milk if you like we can get back to the discussion, if you are still finding it emotionally too much to handle then maybe we should put it aside for right now until you feel a little better. Quote
Legato Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 1 hour ago, SkyHigh said: I lose? This is why you are often such a poor and uninteresting interlocuteur, everything with you in zero sum. People with even a small amount of experience in high level decision-making pride themselves on their abilities to find common ground amongst people of different opinions and on being able to employ a charitable interpretation of others arguments, you fail miserably on both counts. If we follow your flawed zero sum analogy, you're scoring on your own net. School boards? Really? Then you should be just as outraged with school boards banning books they don't agree with, those trying to impose religious beliefs in schools.( Ie: both Louisiana and Oklahoma requirements to post the ten commandments in classrooms . Not to mention state GOVERNMENTS trying to put creationism on the same level as evolution), but you're not are you? because you only get your dander up when it goes against your juvenile presuppositions (as an example our last conversation was about how mean and insulting Trudeau saying that the US missed an opportunity to elect a progressive woman to the presidency was, but Trump saying Canada should be a state was simply a little joke. Still think that?) Now to the topic at hand. Pew research estimates the number of trans/nonbinary population of the US to be just shy of 50'000, with a fraction of them having had any kind of gender reassignment procedures and that fraction gets even smaller for those under 18( and in conversations we've had about gun control, you have said that 17 isn't really a child) Let me be clear I don't think anyone under 18 should be subjected to any procedure that could not be reversed if they wanted, but we're taking about a group that could probably be counted on two hands. Hardly cause for the outrage expressed by the conservative "mouvement" My point was and is that this is just a way for the Republicans to divert the attention of their voters from the fact they have no real solutions. For example Trump said 10 years ago he had a better health care plan two weeks away, yet today still has nothing but a concept of a plan, Trump ran on bringing down grocery prices (amongst others) and now as prices continue to rise he has no solutions, Trump vowed to drain the swamp yet Musk, and I could go on. In conclusion, in the greater scheme of the problems facing North America the trans issue is inconsequential as it effects an extremely small percentage of people, most just because of ignorance not only of science but how it feels to them based on bigoted religious beliefs. The fact that the best you had was school boards and no actual policy makers shows that all you have is your own bigoted feelings Wow a diatribe of many words trying to sound intellectual all just to say that you don't like Trump. Then accuse other people of bigotry. Sorry old chap but in a score out of ten you get a knitting needle. 1 Quote
User Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 3 hours ago, SkyHigh said: My point was and is that this is just a way for the Republicans to divert the attention of their voters from the fact they have no real solutions. When the political left was pushing this garbage, was that because they had no real solutions and were trying to divert the attention of voters? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 25 Report Posted February 25 On 2/24/2025 at 12:47 PM, User said: 1. Except, you are doing the opposite, where you are not really engaging on the issues being pushed, most of which have little to do with the experts, as they are policy positions being supported by folks on the left. 2. Example: An "expert" might find that masks are an important part of stopping contagious disease, and they publish studies showing their effectiveness. Politicians and bureaucrats are the ones that then choose how to enact laws and policies around this, maybe they say to people not to wear masks, they lie to them, because they want to protect mask supply. We are here arguing about why transgenders are a political issue, I point out why, I give you a huge list of things as to why... and you have reduced this to saying experts. The mask experts were not the ones who said to lie to people or to restrict public mask supplies. 3. Again, you have yet to explain why anything I have said here needs the additional context. 4. That is not what I said. I am pointing out the differences here between policy that is driven by politicians and what "experts" do. There is no medical community to follow, because they are not experts in policy. 5. I have the history. To the point of this thread, it is those on the left pushing this onto society, and we are pushing back. That is why this is a political issue. 6. Politicians and those on the left that support them. I have already provided you a list of examples. -Politicians working to normalize kids being trans -Putting trans books in schools, the curriculum, policies to "affirm" children being trans in schools, even worse policies to hide this from parents, laws enacting these things -Putting trans kids into girls sports, telling girls they have to compete against boys -Putting trans kids into traditional girl spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, etc... -Putting these messages into DEI training that is mandated into all government agencies -Changing policies in the military to openly accept trans AND then also cover for their surgeries and other "affirming" care -Putting trans prisoners into prisons with women where they are sexually assaulted and forcing tax payers to pay for their "affirming" care -Forcing public officials to use any of the 1 million pronouns someone can choose for themselves, changing drivers licenses and other official documentation like birth certificates and passports to reflect a sex someone is not 7. No, you don't get to say what my point is. I am telling you what my point is. You use language like "if" when there is no if. It is happening. No, you are not mostly making medical arguments at all. This question followed my previous statement on your use of "if" There is no "if" it is happening. It is happening. You are seemingly acknowledging this now, but it doesn't explain why you keep using language like "if" before now. But hey, lets move forward, lets see if you keep doing this. Why do you keep doing this? I have answered this. I clearly explained this. I can keep copy and pasting for you though: -Politicians working to normalize kids being trans -Putting trans books in schools, the curriculum, policies to "affirm" children being trans in schools, even worse policies to hide this from parents, laws enacting these things -Putting trans kids into girls sports, telling girls they have to compete against boys -Putting trans kids into traditional girl spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, etc... -Putting these messages into DEI training that is mandated into all government agencies -Changing policies in the military to openly accept trans AND then also cover for their surgeries and other "affirming" care -Putting trans prisoners into prisons with women where they are sexually assaulted and forcing tax payers to pay for their "affirming" care -Forcing public officials to use any of the 1 million pronouns someone can choose for themselves, changing drivers licenses and other official documentation like birth certificates and passports to reflect a sex someone is not 8. There is no meta here. You are just keep avoiding that YOUR language made no distinction in age of the child. I don't have to agree to any clarifying language, but you can certainly clarify your own language if you want to. YOUR language made no distinction. I will repeat myself again, since you didn't address my point: 9. "Your argument makes no distinction on age. So why does it stop at 3? Where is your line? We can't talk about only 17 year olds because you have not provided any reason to based on your own argument. " 1. I was speaking generally. Some discussions don't require experts, I agree. But if someone tries to enter a political discussion with a statement of "nonbinary people don't exist" ... is that policy or is it science they're talking about ? I'm not sure. Either way I don't have to engage... I don't ever have to engage, for that matter. 2. Analogies are tricky but I'll play... So, yes, the mask issue was politics, supply, and science. I suppose it's the same with transgender issues, you're right. For my part we're still in a meta-discussion here but maybe give a more specific example and I'll tell you how I would approach it from both science and politics. 3. I think the thing I can't get my head around is you saying that making a statement on physics vs social issues is analogous ? 4. But policy depends on medical, economic, climate experts because people don't understand these issues at all without them. 5. But how did it start ? It started with people who wanted to live in another gender. That's been in the public eye for decades. Eventually more people did this, and people started making a case (pushing, if you insist) for accommodating them. Right ? 6. Ok - but as we see, they didn't invent the idea - it came from the community. Now, I'm still trying to break down what "pushing" means. If people are telling them that they want this is it "pushing" the idea ? Maybe it is. And for full disclosure, some of those points you listed are fine by me and fine by people I know also. 7. Ok, so let's say "it" is happening. Medical cases are misdiagnosed, people regret their changes... That alone doesn't justify ceasing any medical help to people who justify as transgender. 8. Neither does yours. You don't have to agree to clarifying language, so I would have to ask you "what age" every time you use the term "child". Because medical care can and should differentiate between 17 year olds and 3 year olds. 9. There's a concept of 'mature minor' in Canada, not sure if they have it in the USA. They try to assess how much the under-18-person should be able to say about their own healthcare. I think that's a good idea. 1 Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted February 25 Report Posted February 25 On 2/24/2025 at 9:47 AM, User said: Why do you keep doing this? I have answered this. I clearly explained this. I can keep copy and pasting for you though: 🤣 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted February 28 Report Posted February 28 On 2/25/2025 at 1:29 PM, Michael Hardner said: 9. There's a concept of 'mature minor' in Canada, not sure if they have it in the USA. They try to assess how much the under-18-person should be able to say about their own healthcare. I think that's a good idea. OK, you have refused to answer the question repeatedly now. I am moving on. See you in the next thread about this subject... Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 28 Report Posted February 28 1 hour ago, User said: OK, you have refused to answer the question repeatedly now. I am moving on. See you in the next thread about this subject... I think that I answered. I said I agree with the 'mature minor ' designation. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.