All Things LGBTQ+ (3 Viewers)

[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.

 

[Snarky Sack]

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

No, sir. From real life examples of that.

Riiiiiiiight. Isolated cases.

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.

I did not say whipping never happened then or now. I'm saying I never heard of whipping for the curiosity about gender I described.

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.

Yes, they may display several behaviors associated in their culture with the opposite sex. Don't alter their body to meet the culture. Teach them to accept themselves the way they are, not strive for a chemically and surgically altered body in order to gain the acceptance of others. Let them dress how they please. "Boys clothes" and "girls clothes" are absolutely a social and cultural construct.

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.

Your eyes and ears, your choice.

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.

She could have said, "Of course Santa Claus isn't real. But childhood transgenderism is." That would have at least indicated an understanding of the difference between reality and fantasy.

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

It was a fair question.

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?

Implants. To a teenage girl who lost her healthy breasts, I doubt that would be of much comfort.

I'm glad you recognize the possibility of regret.

Point of waiting until they reach 18 is to give them time to regret before going under the knife.

Yeah, and with all due respect too, right?

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

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?

No, it is not a far-fetched story - which is why I never said that it was. It is just too pat, as I said, but mainly it is unverifiable, so I don't need to respond to it, IMHO.

If my posts make you mad, please feel free to use whatever options you have not to see or read them. It isn't worth getting upset over and I'm not going to keep explaining the same thing. Life's too short for either one of us.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

A lot of assumptions and unsupported opinions. On the other hand, according to a group of researchers from the Boston University School of Medicine disagree, finding that "[t]here is increasing evidence of a biological basis for gender identity".

Transgender: Evidence on the biological nature of gender identity

Medical care of transgender patients, including surgical and hormonal treatment, has largely been met with resistance by physicians in favor of psychiatric treatment, owing to misconceptions that gender identity can be changed. There is increasing evidence of a biological basis for gender...

www.sciencedaily.com

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.

You are fine with people identifying how they want and presenting how they want, but you are not fine with the backlash toward butt crevasses who can't respect that.

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.

Logical argument? You mean the opinion you offered with zero support.

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.

So now your unsupported opinion is that bi people are just people that want to experiment...

Lady Gaga: "You know what? It’s not a lie that I am bisexual and I like women, and anyone that wants to twist this into ‘she says she’s bisexual for marketing,’ this is a forking lie. This is who I am and who I have always been.”

Drew Barrymore: "Do I like women sexually? Yeah, I do. Totally. I have always considered myself bisexual."

So that's another thing you are wrong about.

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?

It's harder to physically transition after puberty, for one. Transitioning also results in better mental health outcomes for another.

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."

You draw the line at genocide. Good to know.

 

[Snarky Sack]

A lot of assumptions and unsupported opinions. On the other hand, according to a group of researchers from the Boston University School of Medicine disagree, finding that "[t]here is increasing evidence of a biological basis for gender identity".

Transgender: Evidence on the biological nature of gender identity

Medical care of transgender patients, including surgical and hormonal treatment, has largely been met with resistance by physicians in favor of psychiatric treatment, owing to misconceptions that gender identity can be changed. There is increasing evidence of a biological basis for gender...

www.sciencedaily.com

I don't doubt the possibility of a biological basis for gender identity. For the overwhelming majority, in fact, biology determines gender for sure. Are there certain biological characteristics that are associated with transgenderism, a "transgender brain" or "transgender gene?" I wouldn't be at all surprised.

I'd be very happy if we waited to provide hormones and surgery until those biological indicators can be indentified in the individual.

You are fine with people identifying how they want and presenting how they want, but you are not fine with the backlash toward butt crevasses who can't respect that.

Because it is a free country. I'm hoping it will stay that way, not a country in which we are all required to sing the same song. I'm way to lazy to go to the Two Minutes Hate thing.

Logical argument? You mean the opinion you offered with zero support.

OK.

So now your unsupported opinion is that bi people are just people that want to experiment...

Not what I said.

Lady Gaga: "You know what? It’s not a lie that I am bisexual and I like women, and anyone that wants to twist this into ‘she says she’s bisexual for marketing,’ this is a forking lie. This is who I am and who I have always been.”

Funny story: I always thought Lady Gaga was a transwoman, just from the name.

Drew Barrymore: "Do I like women sexually? Yeah, I do. Totally. I have always considered myself bisexual."

Very attractive woman, but her acting skills peaked in "ET."

So that's another thing you are wrong about.

It's harder to physically transition after puberty, for one.

They had a harder time with child trans celebrity Jazz Jennings due to her having taken pubety blockers that kept her Vienna sausage from growing large enough to use for taco-plasty.

Jazz Jennings Just Posted A Hospital Photo After Her 3rd Gender Confirmation Surgery

Jazz experienced complications after her initial procedure.

www.womenshealthmag.com

Transitioning also results in better mental health outcomes for another.

All studies purporting to show that have been severely flawed. Never has a valid experimental type surgery shown that. Some are paid for by Big Pharma.

You draw the line at genocide. Good to know.

Always admire good snark.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don't doubt the possibility of a biological basis for gender identity. For the overwhelming majority, in fact, biology determines gender for sure. Are there certain biological characteristics that are associated with transgenderism, a "transgender brain" or "transgender gene?" I wouldn't be at all surprised.

I'd be very happy if we waited to provide hormones and surgery until those biological indicators can be indentified in the individual.

Because it is a free country. I'm hoping it will stay that way, not a country in which we are all required to sing the same song. I'm way to lazy to go to the Two Minutes Hate thing.

OK.

Not what I said.

Funny story: I always thought Lady Gaga was a transwoman, just from the name.

Very attractive woman, but her acting skills peaked in "ET."


They had a harder time with child trans celebrity Jazz Jennings due to her having taken pubety blockers that kept her Vienna sausage from growing large enough to use for taco-plasty.

Jazz Jennings Just Posted A Hospital Photo After Her 3rd Gender Confirmation Surgery

Jazz experienced complications after her initial procedure.

www.womenshealthmag.com

All studies purporting to show that have been severely flawed. Never has a valid experimental type surgery shown that. Some are paid for by Big Pharma.

Always admire good snark.

I'm not sure what's going on, but your replies have been really immature and childish lately. Combined with your constant claims made without evidence and your odd non-sequiturs, it is difficult to carry on productive conversations.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'm not sure what's going on, but your replies have been really immature and childish lately. Combined with your constant claims made without evidence and your odd non-sequiturs, it is difficult to carry on productive conversations.

You mean the Vienna sausage and taco comments? I got a warning from a mod for quoting a passage in "Lawn Boy" that was deemed too explicit for this forum. Trying hard to comply.

I thought Drew and Lady were not authoritative was the point if those were the nonsequitors.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You mean the Vienna sausage and taco comments? I got a warning from a mod for quoting a passage in "Lawn Boy" that was deemed too explicit for this forum. Trying hard to comply.

I thought Drew and Lady were not authoritative was the point if those were the nonsequitors.

There's a whole range of options between explicit and ridiculously childish. All I am saying is that it makes it difficult to maintain a dialogue.

 

[brandon]

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.

To which chapter and verse are you referring?

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.

Do you find yourself on the side of ancient, bigoted, misogynistic moral code on this particular topic?

 

[SystemShock]

To which chapter and verse are you referring?

To any chapter and verse that talks about "man" or "woman". There are no genders described in the Bible. There isn't even a word for homosexuality; that's why the Bible says "man who lies with other man as he would lay with a woman".

Do you find yourself on the side of ancient, bigoted, misogynistic moral code on this particular topic?

What kind of question is that? When have I ever been on the side if the Bible?

 

[Snarky Sack]

There's a whole range of options between explicit and ridiculously childish. All I am saying is that it makes it difficult to maintain a dialogue.

I suppose anytime I say something, there are a near infinite number of ways I could have said it differently, with people lining up to proclaim their objections to whichever I might chose.

Surely you understood clearly what I meant by hot dog and taco. Your objection to this is that I used the wrong words, having been forbidden to use the correct word?

How can I ever win?

All children unfortunate enough to find themselves in the grips of the child transgenderization movement are victimized by the counselors, psychologists, physicians, and surgeons who profit from them. Jennings is unique in also being victimized by her stage parents, and reality show producers, figuratively the vermin of the Television world.

So a better objection would have been to object to my finding humor in that young person's exploitation.

I assure you that it is a gallows kind of humor.

What happened to Jazz Jennings violated her human rights. The violators would be punished in a just world.

I oppose the death penalty, as I've stated elsewhere. If I ever were to support it, I would support it for those who, upon having a confused child walk into their "professional" office, hear "Ka-Ching!" instead of seeing a chance to help that child work through their confusion.

They will smell brimstone and taste sulfur, not long after their Earthly demise.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Surely you understood clearly what I meant by hot dog and taco. Your objection to this is that I used the wrong words, having been forbidden to use the correct word?

Penis and vagina are not forbidden here. Now you know that you can in fact use the correct words.

How can I ever win?

This discussion board is not about winning. If you're trying to win, you are going to keep getting push back from everyone. So in the twist ending is that you win by not trying to win.

All children unfortunate enough to find themselves in the grips of the child transgenderization movement are victimized by the counselors, psychologists, physicians, and surgeons who profit from them.

It's odd to me that you say here that you care about these children, but also say that you support people who refuse to respect the wishes of an adult to be referred to by their pronouns of choice.

I oppose the death penalty, as I've stated elsewhere. If I ever were to support it, I would support it for those who, upon having a confused child walk into their "professional" office, hear "Ka-Ching!" instead of seeing a chance to help that child work through their confusion.

They will smell brimstone and taste sulfur, not long after their Earthly demise.

This is one of the most shocking things you've revealed about your world view.

I've only heard this kind of rhetoric from radical, fundamentalist Christians who seriously, deadly seriously, want our society to be under the control of the Christian equivalent of the Taliban.

I'm not saying they are you cohorts, I'm just saying it's shocking to hear you use the same rhetoric that they use.

In a poorly veiled way, you just said you support killing the people, who help children through the very emotionally difficult and very real issue of gender dysphoria, so they can burn in hell. I mean wow, just wow!

And your justification for that support is that you "know" better than medical, psychiatric and psychological experts what's actually best for each child on a case by case basis.

That's a dangerous level of willful ignorance (in only the original meaning of the word) right there!

 

[LA - L.A.]

I'd like to get some clarification on something. I don't think you, @Snarky Sack, have any obligation to respond to me and am completely cool with you choosing not to respond to me. It's just that I previously noticed something during the course of reading your posts that stuck out as odd to me.

So in a reply to me making a point about snark and your screen name, you said this:

Let me clarify. I got that name back when I used to be pretty Snarky. I told a poster that in one particular reply I was not being Snarky. He said, "Yes you were you snarky sack of sheet." So I adopted the name.

You first registered your account on June 9th of this year and you stated this board's policy about changing screen names in response to someone who suggested you change your screen name:

Yeah, so anyway . . . the name change will have to wait. I'm not allowed to change it for a month after registering.

So this is the sequence of events as told by you if I've got it straight:

• You registered a new account with the screen name Snarky Sack on June 9th of this year.
• You tried to change your screen name recently, but found out you can't change your screen name until a month after you registered your account.
• You explained that you chose your screen name because:

I got that name back when I used to be pretty Snarky. I told a poster that in one particular reply I was not being Snarky. He said, "Yes you were you snarky sack of sheet." So I adopted the name.​

After mulling it over for the past week, I decided to ask you about it. Before making this post, I went through all of the responses to all of the posts you made before you told me why you chose your screen name. I didn't find anyone that said this to you:

"Yes you were you snarky sack of sheet."​

In fact, I was the first person who replied to you using any variation of the word snark and you were already using the screen name Snarky Sack when I used the word snark.

I'm confused as to how you chose a screen name based off of a poster replying to a post of yours with "...you snarky sack of..." before you had even registered an account to begin posting with.

I acknowledge that I might be missing something, so I'm curious as to how that all transpired. I'd appreciate any clarification you have to offer.

 

[brandon]

What kind of question is that? When have I ever been on the side if the Bible?

Every time you post on LGBTQ issues.

 

[SystemShock]

Every time you post on LGBTQ issues.

That's a good one. Why do you think that is? Because, based on human biology, I say a male/female of the species cannot transform into a female/male of the species? Because I think the whole gender thing has gotten out of hand? Because I don't think transwomen powered by male puberty should compete against females of the species? Because I question why Caitlyn Jenner is celebrated and Rachel Dolezal vilified? That's me agreeing with the Bible?

 

[brandon]

That's a good one. Why do you think that is? Because, based on human biology, I say a male/female of the species cannot transform into a female/male of the species? Because I think the whole gender thing has gotten out of hand? Because I don't think transwomen powered by male puberty should compete against females of the species? Because I question why Caitlyn Jenner is celebrated and Rachel Dolezal vilified? That's me agreeing with the Bible?

Yes.

 

[SystemShock]

Yes.

If you truly believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa, then you are lost to your ideology. If you celebrate one individual's physical transition but vilify another individual's physical transition, that's hypocrisy.

 

[brandon]

If you truly believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species and/or vise versa, then you are lost to your ideology. If you celebrate one individual's physical transition but vilify another individual's physical transition, that's hypocrisy.

Hey man, it's your mirror. I'm just holding it.

 

[SystemShock]

Hey man, it's your mirror. I'm just holding it.

You may think that's clever but it isn't.

Do you really believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species, and vise versa?

 

[brandon]

You may think that's clever but it isn't.

Do you really believe a male of the species can transform into a female of the species, and vise versa?

I have never made this claim. I don't know why you're asking me to support it.

I do believe someone can be a different gender than their assigned biological sex, because I don't believe gender and biological sex are necessarily linked in all cases.