All Things LGBTQ+ (8 Viewers)

SystemShock said:

Who is that? That is a really, really bad argument. Sure, Santa Claus is not real, but for a 4 year old that has been told Santa Claus is real by the people (parents, relatives) that 4 year old trusts the most, and the idea of Santa Claus being staged every Christmas morning, of course Santa Claus is real. But then, around the age of 8-10 (if not earlier), after learning more about their world, they start questioning the idea of Santa Claus.

And, if no one tells a 4 year old that Santa Claus is real, they'd never even come up with a similar concept.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Nor would a four year old come up with the idea that he or she is "transgender."

What a four year old is much, much more likely to do is play dress up by wearing mommy or daddy's clothes, tuck in his genitals in front of a mirror to see what he would look like if he were a girl, or envy a toy his sister gets for Christmas. Twenty years ago, parents would have chuckled at such typical antics, if they noticed them at all. Now, bizarrely, that could actually set the child on a path on which he will have his body poisoned with hormones, and his body parts permanently mutilated.

Does it happen every time? No, of course not. The vast majority of parents will still give sound parental advice when their child asks questions about gender, or a girl wants to play with the boys. But the pressure that the media is putting on parents to not be "transphobic," with school counselors being trained to watch carefully for signs of transgenderim and to coax such a claim from any child they are able to spot, along with the profit motive of the transgenderization of kids industry, means that it happens in growing numbers.

SystemShock said:

Gender, on the other hand, kids don't need to be told about them; they can observe gender and societal gender roles and appearance by themselves.

Now, I get that the right-wing preaches the idea of grooming, and believe Democrat parents push kids to be gay or transgender because is "trendy", in the same manner as parents push Santa Claus on their kids, but in my experience, that can't be farther from the truth. Surely there are some freaks out there that do so, but again, in my experience that's not the case, on the contrary, and not because it is a sin, but because they understand the traumatic trek their kids are about to embark.

Click to expand...

"Grooming" is an unfortunate choice of term. The debate bogs down when we ascribe motives to others, because we would often be wrong, and we could never prove it, and the ascribed motives are so alarming. We could never prove that people interested in "helping" kids be transgender are doing it out of sexual interest.

But it is more than obvious that the transgenderization of children is very profitable. Or at least much more so that just counseling them. Get a child on any kind of medical treatment for Gender Dysphoria, and it will likely be for life, and for nearly one hundred percent, the treatment will last at least a decade. As of now, the bottom surgery is the mother lode of lifetime dependence on paying doctors. With government regulated insurance forced to pay of it all, the patient is only out the co-pays and deductibles, but tose can be substantial, given the frequency of treatment needed to maintain the body in such an unnatural condition.

Are there men who just like the idea of a "girl with something extra," with girl meaning young kid? Sure, but probably not as many as men who like the idea of young girls who are actual girls. We must hope that men of the first type are not making decisions for a child that is gender confused. Well, at least I hope that. You are free to have your own hopes, of course.

SystemShock said:

We have dear friends back in NC who are dealing with it right now, who happen to be conservative church goers, so I guarantee you, they did not groom anyone or allowed anyone to groom their kid. We know their kids since they were babies, and their youngest is going through the transition. And they are currently considering leaving the U.S. because of it, not out of shame, but due to the hostile environment against people like their kid. They are actually looking into moving to my hometown of Merida, because my hometown (and really the State of Yucatan) is very tolerant and accepting of LGBTQ+. We even offered them to send their kid here with us.

Click to expand...

Not calling anyone a liar, but I never accept personal stories like that, which are so pat in providing evidence to support the teller of the tale's political beliefs.

I recommend the movie "Transhood" on Cinemax, now known as "Max." It is intended to be very pro-transkid. I believe there are a total of four "transgender" kids in the documentary. Two of the four are very obviously being pushed to do what they are doing by parents. One kid is very young, four to six, he's a heavy kid so it is hard to tell. His mom belongs to this extremely woke church full of suburban people of rural origin (hesitating to say the "r-word"). She pushes him hard to step up and proclaim himself a girl or non-binary. By the end of the doc, he is in a plaid shirt playing with other boys, much to her chagrin.

The other is the "cute" blond "girl" that makes people think that transactivists are groomers. She's about eleven or twelve. If she is being treated in the same way thatJazz Jennings was, she is being hormonalized so that she will never be able to have children. She does self identify as a transgirl. But . . . her mom is a stage mamma no better than child pageant mammas. She pushes and pushes for the kid to go on a book tour and meet congressfolk. The kid may honestly think this is the right thing. But my point is that with a stage mamma like that, there is no way out.

Bad enough if she were a pageant kid, but at least when a pageant kid grows up, they can just wipe off the make up, wash the hairspray and glitter out of their hair and lead a normal life.

I noticed Sack never answered your first question, but had plenty of time to expound voluminously on everything else.

That was Matt Walsh. From wiki - which is a convenient source for looking up people and if Sack has any quibbles he can be free to disparage it all he wants. However, he just used the NY Post as a source so if I were him I would be careful about throwing stones from his glass house.

Matt is basically a comedian who has a podcast, writes for The Daily Wire, and has decided to attack and demonize trans people.

“Walsh's views have mainly been described as right-wing[25][3][26][27][28] and conservative,[29][30][31][32] and less often as far-right.[33] His commentary is sometimes described by media outlets as trolling or provocation.[34][35][36][37] He labels himself a "theocratic fascist" in his Twitter biography,[38][39] which he has said was in response to an opponent using the label as an insult.[40]

Walsh has argued that the trial of Kenosha unrest shooter Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted, was malicious prosecution.[41] He has argued for banning pornography and supports restricting abortion.[42] Walsh has argued that ozone depletion and acid rainwere never serious problems, in tweets that Ars Technica described as "willfully ignoring some very well-documented history".[43]

Regarding the casting of Halle Bailey in the live-action version of The Little Mermaid(2023), Walsh said on The Daily Wire, "from a scientific perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have someone with darker skin who lives deep in the ocean," and suggested that the mermaid should be translucent instead. Walsh's commentary was mocked on CNN by digital senior entertainment writer Lisa France, who said "racism is real, unfortunately, and people get so offended".[44] Later, Walsh said that "Translucent rights are human rights".[45] He called anime "satanic" in an answer to viewers' questions in one of his videos, adding "I have no argument for why it's satanic. It just seems that way to me."[46][47] He has called multiculturalism a "failed experiment".[48]”

MT15 said:

I noticed Sack never answered your first question, but had plenty of time to expound voluminously on everything else.

Click to expand...

I thought it was more or less rhetorical, like when someone starts a response with "Wut?" Or "WTF are you talking about?" Not because everyone knows who Matt Walsh is but because he could have easily wiki'd Walsh as you did and because what does it matter who asked the question?

This lady is a thought leader of the transgenderization of children movement who cannot simply agree that Santa Claus, the mythical magical man who gives toys to children all over the world in one night, isn't real. Her answer was that he is real to children.

It goes to what other impossible childhood fantasies she will affirm.

MT15 said:

That was Matt Walsh. From wiki - which is a convenient source for looking up people and if Sack has any quibbles he can be free to disparage it all he wants. However, he just used the NY Post as a source so if I were him I would be careful about throwing stones from his glass house.

Click to expand...

No, I love Wiki now. I will be using it often on this forum as proof and I hope you will jump in and correct anyone who tells me that it is not a good source.

MT15 said:

Matt is basically a comedian who has a podcast, writes for The Daily Wire, and has decided to attack and demonize trans people.

“Walsh's views have mainly been described as right-wing[25][3][26][27][28] and conservative,[29][30][31][32] and less often as far-right.[33] His commentary is sometimes described by media outlets as trolling or provocation.[34][35][36][37] He labels himself a "theocratic fascist" in his Twitter biography,[38][39] which he has said was in response to an opponent using the label as an insult.[40]

Walsh has argued that the trial of Kenosha unrest shooter Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted, was malicious prosecution.[41] He has argued for banning pornography and supports restricting abortion.[42] Walsh has argued that ozone depletion and acid rainwere never serious problems, in tweets that Ars Technica described as "willfully ignoring some very well-documented history".[43]

Regarding the casting of Halle Bailey in the live-action version of The Little Mermaid(2023), Walsh said on The Daily Wire, "from a scientific perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have someone with darker skin who lives deep in the ocean," and suggested that the mermaid should be translucent instead. Walsh's commentary was mocked on CNN by digital senior entertainment writer Lisa France, who said "racism is real, unfortunately, and people get so offended".[44] Later, Walsh said that "Translucent rights are human rights".[45] He called anime "satanic" in an answer to viewers' questions in one of his videos, adding "I have no argument for why it's satanic. It just seems that way to me."[46][47] He has called multiculturalism a "failed experiment".[48]”

Click to expand...

I agree with Walsh on somethings and disagree on others. If it helps to not derail the thread, I think objections to a mixed race Little Mermaid are stupid for the obvious reasons. Mermaids are NOT real, so it doesn't matter what color they are.

But again, Walsh is not the point. We have a woman who has expressed willingness to cater to childhood fantasies as if they are real, and she is giving advice to parents of confused kids, or to non-confused kids with confused parents. I suppose she would offer the same obfuscation about mermaids being real.

Snarky Sack said:

Not calling anyone a liar, but I never accept personal stories like that, which are so pat in providing evidence to support the teller of the tale's political beliefs.

Click to expand...

I don't have the energy to respond to all of the crap you just said, but I want to highlight the absolute hypocrisy of this statement. You have criticized the majority of posters here for not providing sources for their claims (when they actually do), and you do so again here in a roundabout way, despite the fact that you make claim after outrageous claim with zero evidence.

MT15 said:

Matt is basically a comedian who has a podcast, writes for The Daily Wire, and has decided to attack and demonize trans people.

Click to expand...

You told me everything I needed to know. Thank you.

I find this tweet interesting, because of its content and because of the added information. I'm no fan of the death penalty. I oppose it strongly because I don't believe government has ever demonstrated the wisdom to be trusted to apply such a penalty responsibly.

But I'm appalled that the ACLU goes on and on in such weepy terms about the man not having his chosen gender identity catered to but says nothing about his victims. I don't know if you can see it, but apparently Twitter's version of fact check is that selected other twits can add information to someone else's tweet.

Here's how to become a "contributor" as Twitter calls them:





EDIT: I guess you cannot see it. Here is the contribution, or context notes:



I wouldn't have needed it, but I'm sure others do. My assumption would be that someone on Death Row committed a horrible crime, nearly always murder aggravated by other factors. But life in prison deprived of things that bring them joy is a more appropriate punishment for stealing the joy from others. For this guy:


dressing like a girl was one of the things he missed out on. Surprising that a transwoman was arrested with such short hair.

Snarky Sack said:

Exactly.

Click to expand...

Exactly what?

Snarky Sack said:

Nor would a four year old come up with the idea that he or she is "transgender."

Click to expand...

Why are you stuck with 4 year olds?

Snarky Sack said:

What a four year old is much, much more likely to do is play dress up by wearing mommy or daddy's clothes, tuck in his genitals in front of a mirror to see what he would look like if he were a girl, or envy a toy his sister gets for Christmas. Twenty years ago, parents would have chuckled at such typical antics, if they noticed them at all.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and 50 years ago parents would have whipped them up for doing that and told never to do that again. So there has been progress.

Yet again, why are you stuck with 4 year olds? Because you heard it on youtube from someone from The Daily Wire? I didn't recognize Matt Walsh, but if that's where you are getting your talking points....

Snarky Sack said:

Now, bizarrely, that could actually set the child on a path on which he will have his body poisoned with hormones, and his body parts permanently mutilated.

Click to expand...

That sounds dire. Are they 4 years old when they get poisoned and mutilated?

Snarky Sack said:

Does it happen every time? No, of course not. The vast majority of parents will still give sound parental advice when their child asks questions about gender, or a girl wants to play with the boys. But the pressure that the media is putting on parents to not be "transphobic," with school counselors being trained to watch carefully for signs of transgenderim and to coax such a claim from any child they are able to spot, along with the profit motive of the transgenderization of kids industry, means that it happens in growing numbers.

Click to expand...

Daily Wire, alright...

Snarky Sack said:

Not calling anyone a liar, but I never accept personal stories like that, which are so pat in providing evidence to support the teller of the tale's political beliefs.

Click to expand...

But you think I am lying to push my political beliefs. Would you like names, address, and pictures so you can go and question this young person's gender and admonish the parents for grooming coaxing their child to because trans?

What I posted is true, and has nothing to do with "political beliefs". My views on sexuality and LGBTQ+ were shaped even before "LGBT" was even coined, and in a different country, before I even knew about Democrats and Republicans, in a place devoid or Foxes and CNNs. or even before I spoke English with any sort of fluency. And I think my posting record speaks to that; I've had people accuse me of "pushing liberal political narratives" (like you just did), and at the same time my views on female athletics and the concept of gender as an spectrum (and even myself) have been called "transphobic".

SystemShock said:

You have to think in 3K-4K years ago terms. The Bible doesn't say "thou shalt only use these pronouns", but it is implicit in that it says Yahweh created man and woman, in the male and female of the species sense; those were the only 2 choices, there was no concept of "genders", and any deviation from it constituted an abomination. You have to think about how people back then would try to explain a male/female of the species acting/dressing as a female/male of the species. So Bible wise, it would be sinful to recognize a male/female of the species as a woman/man.

Click to expand...

I actually think this is a pretty poor interpretation, even though a common one.

In Genesis, it says God created man and woman. It doesn’t say anything other than that.

So the first two people were a man and a woman. Cool. It doesn’t say anything about subsequent people not being a man and a woman. It just says the first two were.

Reading into it any more than that is allowing your own bias into the text.

SystemShock said:

Exactly what?


Why are you stuck with 4 year olds?

Click to expand...

I believe that four years old is too young to say that a child understands what transgenderism is and to make what could end up being a life-altering choice that could put them at the mercy of constant doctor visits for most, if not all, of their lives.

Obviously children young than four are too young also. I used the four year old example, because that was the Example Matt Walsh used when he asked the question. What I'm "stuck on" meaning what I think is the important point of that video clip is that the transactivist could not simply say "Santa Claus is not real."

Why? Because she did not want to concede the point that not everything a four year old believes or that a four year old is told and believes, is real.

SystemShock said:

Yeah, and 50 years ago parents would have whipped them up for doing that and told never to do that again. So there has been progress.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that might have happened in some isolated cases. Not every parent is a rage-aholic looking for any excuse to beat their children who must be taken by the state. If it puts your mind at ease, when my brother and I envied our sister's Easy Bake Oven that she had her friends over to play with, my mother did not whip us. She just said, "I think you boys are a little jealous," which snapped us out of it. We went out to toss the baseball.*

I always thought that was wise of her, though I was insulted at the time. I don't know. Maybe she was being transphobic and should have instead sat us down with the girls and made them e tolerant.

SystemShock said:

Yet again, why are you stuck with 4 year olds? Because you heard it on youtube from someone from The Daily Wire? I didn't recognize Matt Walsh, but if that's where you are getting your talking points....

Click to expand...

Ok, I get it, you don't like the Daily Wire. Whether it came from the Daily Wire or Pravda, the clip shows a transactivist refusing to acknowledge that Santa Clause is not real. That is a common tactic, to stall debate by refusing to concede the smallest point, leaving the opponent in sputtering instead of making his or her point. It didn't work with Matt Walsh, because he never expected her to ever concede that children are not the best judges of reality. The sound byte of her refusing to acknowledge the non-existance of Old Saint Nick was all he was after.

SystemShock said:

That sounds dire. Are they 4 years old when they get poisoned and mutilated?

Click to expand...

No, sir. Youngest age for puberty blockers is after the onset of puberty, and the youngest age for elective double mastectomy that I know of is 15. I read that they do not do bottom surgery until 18, which I certainly hope is true.

I've answered several of your questions, I hope you will answer this one: are those appropriate ages for those treatments?

SystemShock said:

Daily Wire, alright...

Click to expand...

Addressed above.

SystemShock said:

But you think I am lying to push my political beliefs. Would you like names, address, and pictures so you can go and question this young person's gender and admonish the parents for grooming coaxing their child to because trans?

Click to expand...

Not at all. As I said, I don't want to call anyone a liar, and I don't say that you are lying. I believe that there is more to the story, as there is with any story. I'm sure you are not serious in your offer, you're not going to turn over personal information of friends to a person on a message board. Hypothetically if you did, I could talk to them and get "the rest of the story," if there is any.

Honestly, no offense intended. But if my option is accept that story and change my beliefs because of it, or choose not to accept it with no evidence, I have to pick the latter. That is the position one is in when confronted with such a personal anecdote. An article online, I can read and offer analysis.

SystemShock said:

What I posted is true, and has nothing to do with "political beliefs". My views on sexuality and LGBTQ+ were shaped even before "LGBT" was even coined, and in a different country, before I even knew about Democrats and Republicans, in a place devoid or Foxes and CNNs. or even before I spoke English with any sort of fluency. And I think my posting record speaks to that; I've had people accuse me of "pushing liberal political narratives" (like you just did), and at the same time my views on female athletics and the concept of gender as an spectrum (and even myself) have been called "transphobic".

Click to expand...

I don't believe that I accused you of "pushing liberal political narratives." I specified "the teller of the tale's political beliefs," which means your political beliefs, not anyone else's narrative.

If you are paraphrasing me, that would be more clear if you left out the quote marks. As a mater of fact I have noticed with appreciation that you don't follow the Party line and often post things that are not part of the liberal political narrative.

*You are welcome to doubt that story about the Easy Bake as being too pat in supporting my position.

brandon said:

I actually think this is a pretty poor interpretation, even though a common one.

In Genesis, it says God created man and woman. It doesn’t say anything other than that.

Click to expand...

What do you think "man" and "woman" meant to the person or people who wrote Genesis?

brandon said:

So the first two people were a man and a woman. Cool. It doesn’t say anything about subsequent people not being a man and a woman. It just says the first two were.

Reading into it any more than that is allowing your own bias into the text.

Click to expand...

It seems it is you who's allowing your 21st century biases into text that was written 1000s of years ago.

The Bible says God created man and woman, nothing else: there is male and female, this is how males act, this is how females act, and any deviation from that is an abomination. There was no concept of "gender" back then, or the idea that people could change their "gender" or transform their bodies using hormones and surgery. Heck, it wasn't that long ago that "gender" simply meant male or female.

cuddlemonkey said:

The student doesn't identify as female. Why do you have such a hard time accepting people for who they are?

Click to expand...

I don't believe that we can always change who we are by changing who we identify as. Sometimes we can, if I identify as a libertarian (which I do), then I'm a liberatarian, even though many libertarians would hound me on small details of my belief in freedom ('cause that's what we do, unfortunately).

But suppose I identify as a person who is right in this debate - which I do. Does that mean that you must accept me for who I am, i.e. a person who is right in this debate?

cuddlemonkey said:

Oh, bless your heart...

Click to expand...

Peace be upon you.

cuddlemonkey said:

Why are you the arbiter of who is or is not making an effort? You don't get to apply your own standards to another person when it comes to their identity.

Click to expand...

Same reason that you can be an arbiter of who is right and wrong in their political beliefs. It's opinion. Opinions are like butt crevices. Everyone has one and most of them stink. But we are still able to have them.

SystemShock said:

What do you think "man" and "woman" meant to the person or people who wrote Genesis?

Click to expand...

That the first two people were a man and a woman. I don’t think this particular Bible story is a commentary on gender limitations.

SystemShock said:

The Bible says God created man and woman, nothing else: there is male and female, this is how males act, this is how females act, and any deviation from that is an abomination. There was no concept of "gender" back then, or the idea that people could change their "gender" or transform their bodies using hormones and surgery. Heck, it wasn't that long ago that "gender" simply meant male or female.

Click to expand...

No, that would be allowing the biases of people “back then” to influence the interpretation. I’m not saying they weren’t biased, too.

None of your additional context can be ascribed to “God created man and woman.”
Historically, man has pretty consistently made poor interpretations of scripture that were later revised to remove human biases.

cuddlemonkey said:

I don't have the energy to respond to all of the crap you just said, but I want to highlight the absolute hypocrisy of this statement. You have criticized the majority of posters here for not providing sources for their claims (when they actually do), and you do so again here in a roundabout way, despite the fact that you make claim after outrageous claim with zero evidence.

Click to expand...

Taking advice I've been given, I am trying to observe how others post and fit in better. I notice that many make statements without providing backup. So I'm doing the same.

Snarky Sack said:

I don't believe that we can always change who we are by changing who we identify as. Sometimes we can, if I identify as a libertarian (which I do), then I'm a liberatarian, even though many libertarians would hound me on small details of my belief in freedom ('cause that's what we do, unfortunately).

Click to expand...

Your political ideology is not inherent. You made a choice after weighing options. Trans people are not choosing how to identify as though picking off a menu. They are choosing to be who they inherently are.

Snarky Sack said:

But suppose I identify as a person who is right in this debate - which I do. Does that mean that you must accept me for who I am, i.e. a person who is right in this debate?

Click to expand...

Do you acknowledge the difference in political ideology and subjective perception vs inherent characteristics?

Snarky Sack said:

Peace be upon you.

Same reason that you can be an arbiter of who is right and wrong in their political beliefs. It's opinion. Opinions are like butt crevices. Everyone has one and most of them stink. But we are still able to have them.

Click to expand...

You say right and wrong as though we are discussing something objective, like the winner of Superbowl 44. My opinion is that certain beliefs, including some political beliefs, go against my moral compass. This is subjective, not objective.

Snarky Sack said:

Taking advice I've been given, I am trying to observe how others post and fit in better. I notice that many make statements without providing backup. So I'm doing the same.

Click to expand...

You haven’t fit in with any of your other alts, why do you think this one will be different?

And the only transitioning a 4 year old is doing is into kindergarten.

Seriously to believe that you have to be completely clueless on how infancy to childhood to adolescence to adulthood transitions occur. Literally no clue at all.

Frankly, I assume if you believe this tripe you have a drool cup and have funded several African civil wars over the internet.

cuddlemonkey said:

Your political ideology is not inherent. You made a choice after weighing options. Trans people are not choosing how to identify as though picking off a menu. They are choosing to be who they inherently are.

Do you acknowledge the difference in political ideology and subjective perception vs inherent characteristics?

Click to expand...

Sure. I don't believe that identifying as the opposite gender from ones sex in inherent. It is often transitory, especially in children and teens. Kinds change their mind about being the other gender. If it were inherent, it would not change any more than their genitals would change absent surgical or hormonal intervention.

I'm fine with them identifying as trans, and with social transistino. I'm fine with adults doing whatever they want to their bodies, though I would recommend they wait until they are at least in their twenties.

I'm not fine with people being punished in any way for calling an obvious male "he" other than the private sector workplace.

cuddlemonkey said:

You say right and wrong as though we are discussing something objective, like the winner of Superbowl 44. My opinion is that certain beliefs, including some political beliefs, go against my moral compass. This is subjective, not objective.

Click to expand...

Correct.

My subjective opinion, backed by the logical argument I just made but still subjective, is that identifying as a different gender is not an inherent characteristic in the same way that biological sex is, or even close.

Or maybe I should say "not always." Yes, I say not always.

As with being gay, for example. Some kids and teens are curious and experiment with both sexes. But nearly all of them are firmly attracted to one sex or another by the time they grow up. Some are bisexual, but in my opinion, that is often more of an extension of the urge to experiment. Sexuality in that sense is on as spectrum as some have it, I think of it as being multi-faceted. Somewhere in there are people who like women with hot dogs, or men with tacos.

Suppose it is inherent, and I don't know for sure that it is not. Then the transgender identification will still be there when they are adults. So what is the rush?

Along with preserving safe spaces and sports for women, leaving the kids alone is really my only concern. Plus freedom of conscience. Ok, I have several concerns. But I believe all reasonable, and none based on hate.

I disagree with the shock pundits who say things like "we need to eradicate transgenderism."

Snarky Sack said:

I believe that four years old is too young to say that a child understands what transgenderism is and to make what could end up being a life-altering choice that could put them at the mercy of constant doctor visits for most, if not all, of their lives.

Obviously children young than four are too young also. I used the four year old example, because that was the Example Matt Walsh used when he asked the question. What I'm "stuck on" meaning what I think is the important point of that video clip is that the transactivist could not simply say "Santa Claus is not real."

Click to expand...

So this obsession with 4 year olds come from Matt Walsh's ridiculous example?

Snarky Sack said:

I'm sure that might have happened in some isolated cases.

Click to expand...

Riiiiiiiight. Isolated cases.

Snarky Sack said:

Not every parent is a rage-aholic looking for any excuse to beat their children who must be taken by the state.

Click to expand...

For a whipping? 50 years ago? When teachers whipped you and when you complained to your parents they asked you what did you do? Come on.

Snarky Sack said:

If it puts your mind at ease, when my brother and I envied our sister's Easy Bake Oven that she had her friends over to play with, my mother did not whip us. She just said, "I think you boys are a little jealous," which snapped us out of it. We went out to toss the baseball.*

I always thought that was wise of her, though I was insulted at the time. I don't know. Maybe she was being transphobic and should have instead sat us down with the girls and made them e tolerant.

Click to expand...

My mind is perfectly at ease; and that example is tone deaf.. Kids that display sexual dysphoria at early ages, they display much more than just jealousy of an easy-bake oven.

Snarky Sack said:

Ok, I get it, you don't like the Daily Wire.

Click to expand...

What's to like? The religious zealousness? The bigotry? The lies? Although, I do admit I watch Ben Shapiro once in a while as comic relief, the little pseudo-intellectual birch that he is. That plagiarized Debunked! of atheism is hi-la-rious.

Snarky Sack said:

Whether it came from the Daily Wire or Pravda, the clip shows a transactivist refusing to acknowledge that Santa Clause is not real.

Click to expand...

That's what she did?
Or maybe she didn't know what to say when Walsh brought up the Christmas version of croc-a-duck.

Snarky Sack said:

No, sir. Youngest age for puberty blockers is after the onset of puberty, and the youngest age for elective double mastectomy that I know of is 15. I read that they do not do bottom surgery until 18, which I certainly hope is true.

Click to expand...

I have to ask for clarification, because you seemed stuck on 4 year olds.

Snarky Sack said:

I've answered several of your questions, I hope you will answer this one: are those appropriate ages for those treatments?

Click to expand...

At 18, an individual is an adult, for better or for worse. Top surgery can be done at 16, with parental consent and 2 letters from mental health professionals, and frankly I don't have an issue with that. The worst that can happen, they regret it and get implants, like ~250,000 women get every year. I guess they could be forced to reach 18, but what'd be the point?

Snarky Sack said:

Not at all. As I said, I don't want to call anyone a liar, and I don't say that you are lying.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and with all due respect too, right?

Snarky Sack said:

I believe that there is more to the story, as there is with any story.

Click to expand...

More like what? What do you think "the rest of the story" could possibly be?

Snarky Sack said:

Honestly, no offense intended. But if my option is accept that story and change my beliefs because of it, or choose not to accept it with no evidence, I have to pick the latter. That is the position one is in when confronted with such a personal anecdote. An article online, I can read and offer analysis.

Click to expand...

My intention in posting that story is not to change your mind, but simply to provide an example that contradicts the right-wing narrative that liberal parents push their kids to be trans. Is it really that far fetched that church going, conservative parents could possibly have a child that is trans, that you need evidence for it?

brandon said:

That the first two people were a man and a woman. I don’t think this particular Bible story is a commentary on gender limitations.

Click to expand...

There are no genders in the Bible, other than "man" (male of the species) and "woman" (female of the species); and the Bible makes it clear, any deviation from that, is an abomination.

brandon said:

No, that would be allowing the biases of people “back then” to influence the interpretation.

Click to expand...

The biases of people "back then" is what the writings are about.

brandon said:

Historically, man has pretty consistently made poor interpretations of scripture that were later revised to remove human biases.

Click to expand...

No, historically (and that really is recent history) scripture has been revised, or better, apologized for, because its ancient, bigoted, oppressive, misogynistic moral code clashes with more modern secular humanism. You can't remove human biases from text which was very much written to record human biases.