All Things LGBTQ+ (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[bird]

Still waiting.

 

[MT15]

I guess you deserve half a cookie for mixing in one good source. Your second article is completely biased so not even reading that one. I can tell from the pulled quote that they aren’t stopping it in France, just raising the idea that people should be older before permanent solutions are considered (like surgery and hormone therapy). That’s hardly a crazy idea, and I think everyone would be on board with that. Oh, puberty blockers aren’t permanent, I think you keep mixing them up with hormonal therapy.

The Reuters article is about a court ruling in England - not stopped for any medical reasons, but because one person brought suit. One person…. who regretted taking puberty blockers and has now gone through puberty as a woman.

oh, and my opinion on your radicalization has nothing to do with your actual beliefs - it has to do with your willingness to condone threats of violence to enforce those beliefs.

All, the stopped all for trans affirming healthcare. And not just them:
England recently
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-transgender-trfn-idUSKBN28B3AV
France
https://segm.org/France-cautions-regarding-puberty-blockers-and-cross-sex-hormones-for-youth
"The National Academy of Medicine in France has issued a press release in which it cautions medical practitioners that the growing cases of transgender identity in young people are often socially-mediated and that great caution in treatment is needed. The Academy draws attention to the fact that hormonal and surgical treatments carry health risks and have permanent effects, and that it is not possible to distinguish a durable trans identity from a passing phase of an adolescent's development."

How many clinicians that are independent from trans affirming medical care published studies (long term as well) on the benefit hormone therapy specifically for a mental disorder? I will wait (it won't be long, as I will predict a study will soon emerge with no peer review and it will be shown as proof for the trans-money making machine).

 

[Farb]

No, and NOBODY believes men can have babies. You keep posting that schlitz as though you have a point but you do not. Your radicalization is support for the Republican party whose base platform has become The Big Lie and bullschlitz like LGBTQ is somehow some threat to your threadbare existence.

Yes, you most certainly are radicalized. Transgender is none of your business.

As for me? I do not care. What transgender people do is their business. By your idiotic comment regarding the medical industry ED pills should not be sold, plastic surgeons should not practice. Cancer patients should not be treated. The medical industry sucks up money whenever and wherever they can what people seek to do for whatever treatment that actually works as opposed to Republican ivermectin/hydroxychloroquin bullschlitz is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The 'it is none of your business' troupe is worth exploring.
If you see an adult beating a kid in a parking lot, is that your business?
If you see a person get mugged/raped is that none of your business?
If you see a murder, is that none of your business?
If you see a child being sexually assaulted is that also none of your business?
All of this very well might be none of your business as for normal people, it is our business.
It is everyone's business to protect children (that is why it is a universal ingrained trait and celebrated) Remember that pizza driver recently that ran into a building and save a couple of kids? That was a great story wasn't it? Now imagine how that story would be if the said 'nope, none of my business'? It would be in the news because children dying is new worthy, but I am sure glad that guy was an actual human can cared enough about the innocent to make it his business.
It actually says a lot about you that you don't consider it 'your business', and me too on the opposite end. So yeah, I think you are right, it is none of your business.

 

[Farb]

Oh, btw, provide links as to your alleged transgender money-making machine. Or is that just another Farb screech?

Do you really need a link? Do you think the procedures and hormones are free of charge? Watch the doctor's interview from San Fran that said he consults 14 year old on surgeries and get back to me.

 

[SystemShock]

Here's your question:



When you say 'biological division', you are talking about XX vs XY chromosomes, correct?

I am talking VERY clearly about males and females of the species, am I not?

Playing the chromosome game is not going to help you here... while some estimates have the percentage of people who have other than XX / XY as high as 40%, still, barring birth defects or outliers, the overwhelming majority of people are born male of the species or female of the species.

Do I have to define male and female of the species?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Well, if you are saying someone is doing something that makes them a certain something, I think most would like to know what that certain something is.

Promise? I will promise to never respond to you if you do the same? Promise?

How could I pass up such a tempting offer? Pinky swear?

 

[SystemShock]

The men-women division in sports is historically a result of our patriarchal society.

Even if the men-women division in sports is historically a result of our patriarchal society, it still holds that the men-women division in sports is based on the male-female of the species.

There is a physical divide that develops throughout puberty and after between biological men and women that justifies separate leagues in many sports. I don't think anybody in this thread has denied this or failed to recognize it.

Actually, yes... not you, though, but never mind that, I don't want to muddy the waters... let's continue...

I'm not sure why this is as some type of "gotcha". But the physical divide isn't some blanket binary across all sports and doesn't impact all sports in the same way. That's where a lot of nuance exist that is often absent in these "binary" discussion.

"All sports" is a very wide spectrum... for example, the Cheese Roll Race in Gloucester England is an "anyone and everyone can enter" type of sports event, and a female of the species has a record 3 wins. And the prize is the glory of winning and the big wheel of cheese you caught to...

But, if we go with our mainstream sports, especially those you would see in a HS or college, those that have money implications (scholarships, sponsorships, etc.), like football, basketball, baseball, track and field, gymnastics, etc... then the divide is VERY pronounced.

It also doesn't do anything to answer the main question of whether trans people should be allowed to participate in the sport of their gender.

But gender has nothing to do with the divide. You can identify as queer, pansexual, androgyne, or any of 30-some genders and none will have anything to do with the biological male-female divide.

We are exclusively discussing this one particular gender, trans women, and the only reason I am discussing it around the particular topic of sports, is because females of the species are affected. We don't discuss trans men in sports, because I think most people see the disadvantage in a female of the species transitioning to the man gender and then playing sports against males of the species (even though there are other issues to consider around that scenario), but for some reason, they cannot see the disadvantage on the other scenario.

... and I appreciate your continuing the discussion with me.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am talking VERY clearly about males and females of the species, am I not?

Playing the chromosome game is not going to help you here... while some estimates have the percentage of people who have other than XX / XY as high as 40%, still, barring birth defects or outliers, the overwhelming majority of people are born male of the species or female of the species.

Do I have to define male and female of the species?

I'm not trying to play any games regarding hormones. I just want to know how you are delineating between male and female for the purposes of sports.

 

[SystemShock]

I'm not trying to play any games regarding hormones.

If you tell me you were not going to point out that people are born with combinations other than XX and XY and ask me if they were males or females, I'll call you a liar.

I just want to know how you are delineating between male and female for the purposes of sports.

Again, do I have to define male and female of the species? Is it not clear?

And in the same vein as above, I predict you will bring up birth defects and outliers, like females born without a uterus, etc., and ask me if they were males or females.

 

[Farb]

How could I pass up such a tempting offer? Pinky swear?

Thank you and yes.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If you tell me you were not going to point out that people are born with combinations other than XX and XY and ask me if they were males or females, I'll call you a liar.

And you would be wrong. I already made the point I was trying to make in that you are trying to make a binary situation out of something much more complex. A point that you ignored, of course.

Again, do I have to define male and female of the species? Is it not clear?

And in the same vein as above, I predict you will bring up birth defects and outliers, like females born without a uterus, etc., and ask me if they were males or females.

You're really not helping your argument that you aren't arguing in a manner that resembles the religious right. Refusing to define terms to make sure we are arguing the same thing? Check. Strawmanning like a madre frocker? Check.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Thank you and yes.

It just feels like ignoring you wouldn't be very neighborly. I'll still wave at you when we pass on the streets- me, driving to the store; you, heading to a book burning.

 

[Lapaz]

The 'it is none of your business' troupe is worth exploring.
If you see an adult beating a kid in a parking lot, is that your business?
If you see a person get mugged/raped is that none of your business?
If you see a murder, is that none of your business?
If you see a child being sexually assaulted is that also none of your business?
All of this very well might be none of your business as for normal people, it is our business.
It is everyone's business to protect children (that is why it is a universal ingrained trait and celebrated) Remember that pizza driver recently that ran into a building and save a couple of kids? That was a great story wasn't it? Now imagine how that story would be if the said 'nope, none of my business'? It would be in the news because children dying is new worthy, but I am sure glad that guy was an actual human can cared enough about the innocent to make it his business.
It actually says a lot about you that you don't consider it 'your business', and me too on the opposite end. So yeah, I think you are right, it is none of your business.

Can we agree that everything you mentioned above hurt someone else, but someone becoming transgender doesn't hurt another person? That's where the "none of your business" comes from. If it doesn't hurt another person, then it isn't anyone's business except the person making the choice. It's like if you want to shave your head, or get tatoos, or get piercings, or even use drugs that don't result in violence or damage to others. In this case, if someone wants to take sexual change drugs, that doesn't hurt nor affect anyone, except the person taking the drugs, so it shouldn't be anyone else's business.

 

[Farb]

Can we agree that everything you mentioned above hurt someone else, but someone becoming transgender doesn't hurt another person? That's where the "none of your business" comes from. If it doesn't hurt another person, then it isn't anyone's business except the person making the choice. It's like if you want to shave your head, or get tatoos, or get piercings, or even use drugs that don't result in violence or damage to others. In this case, if someone wants to take sexual change drugs, that doesn't hurt nor affect anyone, except the person taking the drugs, so it shouldn't be anyone else's business.

I can agree to that but doesn't change the fact that a child is getting hurt. Right?
So by that logic, you are fine with children buying alcohol and getting tattoos as early as 12 or 13? It doesn't hurt anyone but the one making that choice, right?

Kids are not legally allowed to make that choice, so the adults in that kids life are making the decision. That is the problem and that is what needs to be stopped.

If an adult wants to have surgeries and take medication to look like a turtle, I could care less. I would not celebrate this person and pretend they are brave and a hero.
If the kid said he wants to be a turtle and the parent then began the process of making that happen, that is where everyone should have a problem.

You are asking a 12 year old to make a life altering decision and at the same time, most on here thinks an 18 year old can't make a legally binding decision on a student loan and wants everyone else to pay for it. Which one is it? Are kids able to make important life decisions are are they not? You can't have both.

 

[Lapaz]

I can agree to that but doesn't change the fact that a child is getting hurt. Right?
So by that logic, you are fine with children buying alcohol and getting tattoos as early as 12 or 13? It doesn't hurt anyone but the one making that choice, right?

Kids are not legally allowed to make that choice, so the adults in that kids life are making the decision. That is the problem and that is what needs to be stopped.

If an adult wants to have surgeries and take medication to look like a turtle, I could care less. I would not celebrate this person and pretend they are brave and a hero.
If the kid said he wants to be a turtle and the parent then began the process of making that happen, that is where everyone should have a problem.

You are asking a 12 year old to make a life altering decision and at the same time, most on here thinks an 18 year old can't make a legally binding decision on a student loan and wants everyone else to pay for it. Which one is it? Are kids able to make important life decisions are are they not? You can't have both.

I didn't realize you were referring to minors. I agree with you that we shouldn't allow that. Kids generally don't know what's best for them, so they shouldn't be making the decisions, and no one should be making those types of life altering decision for them based on requests from kids. This becomes much more questionable as a child approaches 18. I think it acceptable for a 17 year old, because 18 is an artificially chosen age. I think a lot of study is needed to evaluate the age at which a child's mind has developed adequately to make a life altering change. I'm fairly certain that 13 is too young, but I'm not sure where the cutoff should be without a lot more information from research.

 

[MT15]

So Farb and Lapaz are both okay with taking away parents rights to make medical decisions about their children? Big government yet again!

Just stop it! Children are getting the standard of care they need for gender issues in coordination with physicians. In the large majority of the cases (if not all) this involves temporary treatment with puberty blockers and a lot of counseling for the family.

The government needs to butt out. They don’t have any reason to interfere here.

 

[Lapaz]

So Farb and Lapaz are both okay with taking away parents rights to make medical decisions about their children? Big government yet again!

Just stop it! Children are getting the standard of care they need for gender issues in coordination with physicians. In the large majority of the cases (if not all) this involves temporary treatment with puberty blockers and a lot of counseling for the family.

The government needs to butt out. They don’t have any reason to interfere here.

I'm not sure whether the government should legislate against it, but I think it is wrong to change or interfere with a child's development. I wouldn't oppose legislation, but I don't have strong convictions about that, yet.

 

[Farb]

So Farb and Lapaz are both okay with taking away parents rights to make medical decisions about their children? Big government yet again!

Just stop it! Children are getting the standard of care they need for gender issues in coordination with physicians. In the large majority of the cases (if not all) this involves temporary treatment with puberty blockers and a lot of counseling for the family.

The government needs to butt out. They don’t have any reason to interfere here.

Doctors, by default are never wrong, is that your stance? They are immune to social, political and monetary pressure?

Do you think it is Big Gov as well that they legislate against pedophilia? You don't so your argument is just MSNBC talking points.