All Things LGBTQ+ (6 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.

 

[brandon]

I wouldn't define preventing affirmation as affirmation.

Come on. We’ve already done this.

Biological sex and gender aren’t the same thing and aren’t always congruent. You know this. You may not agree with it, but you know it is the basis behind the name “gender-affirming therapy.”

 

[SystemShock]

Come on. We’ve already done this.

Biological sex and gender aren’t the same thing and aren’t always congruent. You know this. You may not agree with it, but you know it is the basis behind the name “gender-affirming therapy.”

Great. But how are puberty blockers gender affirmation?

 

[SystemShock]

I would assume that if you're male and ID as a female puberty blockers stop the growth of male characteristics. That helps affirm your female ID.

It does not.

Just so we don't lose track of what the discussion is... I replied to the content of an article that opens up with a story about a woman given puberty blockers to her child, then the story jumped to Texas Children’s Hospital announcing it would stop prescribing gender-affirming hormone therapies.
 By definition, puberty blockers prevent gender affirmation, so unless I am missing something, this woman and her child should not be affected.

 

[SystemShock]

You would probably get a better answer if you spoke with a transgender person or a parent who is supporting their transgender child. There's nothing wrong with discussing and debating it in a forum like this, but it often leaves out the thoughts, feelings and beliefs of those it would affect the most. And that's the problem with all of these new laws. The people most affected are either excluded or ignored in the process. As are the professional opinions and science of experts in this fields (which non of us are). And not only are the people most affected ignored, they are marked as targets by these laws for political gain.

The voices and opinions of concerned parents are valid, and it's easy to understand where two parents might disagree with what's best for their child or where the parents and child may disagree. These aren't usually easy situations. But helping parents make better decisions with their child or protecting children aren't the objectives of these laws. They're just made an issue to feed the right wing outrage.

... so, I'll reiterate:

Just so we don't lose track of what the discussion is... I replied to the content of an article that opens up with a story about a woman given puberty blockers to her child, then the story jumped to Texas Children’s Hospital announcing it would stop prescribing gender-affirming hormone therapies.
 By definition, puberty blockers prevent gender affirmation, so unless I am missing something, this woman and her child should not be affected.

 

[brandon]

Great. But how are puberty blockers gender affirmation?

Again, you’re being transparently disingenuous.

Puberty blockers help affirm the patients chosen (and I obviously use “chosen” loosely) gender, not their biological sex.

I don’t understand why you’re acting like you don’t know this. You may not agree with it, but the semantic charade you’re playing is a waste of time.

 

[coldseat]

... so, I'll reiterate:

Just so we don't lose track of what the discussion is... I replied to the content of an article that opens up with a story about a woman given puberty blockers to her child, then the story jumped to Texas Children’s Hospital announcing it would stop prescribing gender-affirming hormone therapies.
 By definition, puberty blockers prevent gender affirmation, so unless I am missing something, this woman and her child should not be affected.

Texas Children's hospital includes puberty blockers as part of gender affirmation therapy (as do most doctors/hospitals/associations, etc.). So she wouldn't be able to get puberty blockers for her child and would indeed be affected. Also, puberty blockers for the purposes of gender affirmation therapy are considered child abuse by the opinion of the state attorney general (and governor).

Does that answer (I guess that's the right word) your statements?

 

[SystemShock]

Texas Children's hospital includes puberty blockers as part of gender affirmation therapy (as do most doctors/hospitals/associations, etc.). So she wouldn't be able to get puberty blockers for her child and would indeed be affected.

Does that answer (I guess that's the right word) your statements?

If the first sentence is true, then yes, it does answer the question. Thank you.

Leave it to Texas to classify something that prevents affirmation as affirmation.

 

[SystemShock]

Again, you’re being transparently disingenuous.

Puberty blockers help affirm the patients chosen (and I obviously use “chosen” loosely) gender, not their biological sex.

I don’t understand why you’re acting like you don’t know this. You may not agree with it, but the semantic charade you’re playing is a waste of time.

@coldseat answered my question.

But you response highlights one of the problems with this discussion. I am strictly talking about the physical aspect of puberty blockers and hormone treatment. Puberty blockers are meant to block the physical effect hormones have on the body, which by definition does not affirm physical characteristics of a gender, and therefore wouldn't be gender reaffirming.

You just get emotional and accuse me of things. Good game.

 

[insidejob]

Life in Prison...

Idaho bill would make medical treatment for trans youth punishable by life in prison

Idaho’s state House of Representatives has approved the most far-reaching bill yet to criminalize medical treatments for transgender youth, a measure that threatens anyone who facilitates that trea…

thehill.com

 

[Farb]

Life in Prison...

Idaho bill would make medical treatment for trans youth punishable by life in prison

Idaho’s state House of Representatives has approved the most far-reaching bill yet to criminalize medical treatments for transgender youth, a measure that threatens anyone who facilitates that trea…

thehill.com

I agree that child abuse needs strict punishments but I think life in prison might be a tad a much.
However, I do appreciate the sportsmanship of the Idaho House. I like seeing the other side play hard ball too.

 

[brandon]

@coldseat answered my question.

But you response highlights one of the problems with this discussion. I am strictly talking about the physical aspect of puberty blockers and hormone treatment. Puberty blockers are meant to block the physical effect hormones have on the body, which by definition does not affirm physical characteristics of a gender, and therefore wouldn't be gender reaffirming.

You just get emotional and accuse me of things. Good game.

I’m not emotional at all.

Gender is not biological sex. This is not sex-affirmation therapy. It’s gender-affirmation therapy.

 

[V Chip]

However, I do appreciate the sportsmanship of the Idaho House. I like seeing the other side play hard ball too.

Lol. Democrats biggest problem is they don’t know how to play hardball. They’re a bunch of spineless wimps when it comes to playing politics.

 

[SystemShock]

I’m not emotional at all.

Gender is not biological sex. This is not sex-affirmation therapy. It’s gender-affirmation therapy.

... and lo and behold, gender affirmation therapy includes inducing physical body changes so an individual would physically look like people of a certain sex.. who knew?

But then, it doesn't look like you are even attempting to understand what I am saying.

And again, coldseat already answered the question I had.

 

[brandon]

... and lo and behold, gender affirmation therapy includes inducing physical body changes so an individual would physically look like people of a certain sex.. who knew?

But then, it doesn't look like you are even attempting to understand what I am saying.

And again, coldseat already answered the question I had.

I fully understand your argument. You are asking how puberty blockers, which prevent certain changes in primary and secondary sex characteristics, could be considered gender-affirming when they are inherently preventing those biological sex characteristics from showing naturally.

But you are failing to understand that because sex and gender are not the same thing, affirming one’s gender may look different than affirming their biological sex. Ergo, you can affirm your gender with puberty blockers while specifically denying your biological sex.

I understand the argument you’re making. I’m pointing out that it is flawed, however.

 

[MT15]

... and lo and behold, gender affirmation therapy includes inducing physical body changes so an individual would physically look like people of a certain sex.. who knew?

But then, it doesn't look like you are even attempting to understand what I am saying.

And again, coldseat already answered the question I had.

To be fair: puberty blockers prevent physical body changes, they don’t induce them.

 

[Optimus Prime]

JK Rowling staying the course
======================

J.K. Rowling is once again facing backlash for a series of controversial tweets regarding the transgender community.

Rowling criticized the Labour Party’s stance on gender in a tweet on Tuesday — which is also International Women’s Day — joking that under a Labour government, the day will be known as “We Who Must Not Be Named Day.”

The crack, which references her own franchise, was prompted by a Twitter user who condemned Annalise Dodds, Chair of the Labour Party, for claiming she was unsure how to define the term woman.

“Someone please send the Shadow Minister for Equalities a dictionary and a backbone,” Rowling added in another tweet.

Rowling’s criticism of Dodds came after Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon publicly rejected the author’s claim that the nation’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill is a threat to vulnerable women.

Sturgeon defended the bill, which aims to make it easier for people to legally change their gender, in a segment on The World At One on BBC Radio 4.

“This is about a process, an existing process, by which people can legally change their gender, and it’s about making that process less traumatic and inhumane for trans people, one of the most stigmatized minorities in our society,” Sturgeon said of the bill.

“It doesn’t give trans people any more rights, doesn’t give trans people one single additional right that they don’t have right now. Nor does it take away from women any of the current existing rights that women have under the Equalities Act.”

Rowling swiftly began to trend on Twitter following both Sturgeon’s response and the International Women’s Day quip, as users slammed the author’s “transphobic agenda.”.........

MSN

 

[Farb]

Lol. Democrats biggest problem is they don’t know how to play hardball. They’re a bunch of spineless wimps when it comes to playing politics.

You should see the idiots I am forced to vote for. The republicans win the case for spineless wimps hand down, IMO.

 

[Farb]

JK Rowling staying the course
======================

J.K. Rowling is once again facing backlash for a series of controversial tweets regarding the transgender community.

Rowling criticized the Labour Party’s stance on gender in a tweet on Tuesday — which is also International Women’s Day — joking that under a Labour government, the day will be known as “We Who Must Not Be Named Day.”

The crack, which references her own franchise, was prompted by a Twitter user who condemned Annalise Dodds, Chair of the Labour Party, for claiming she was unsure how to define the term woman.

“Someone please send the Shadow Minister for Equalities a dictionary and a backbone,” Rowling added in another tweet.

Rowling’s criticism of Dodds came after Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon publicly rejected the author’s claim that the nation’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill is a threat to vulnerable women.

Sturgeon defended the bill, which aims to make it easier for people to legally change their gender, in a segment on The World At One on BBC Radio 4.

“This is about a process, an existing process, by which people can legally change their gender, and it’s about making that process less traumatic and inhumane for trans people, one of the most stigmatized minorities in our society,” Sturgeon said of the bill.

“It doesn’t give trans people any more rights, doesn’t give trans people one single additional right that they don’t have right now. Nor does it take away from women any of the current existing rights that women have under the Equalities Act.”

Rowling swiftly began to trend on Twitter following both Sturgeon’s response and the International Women’s Day quip, as users slammed the author’s “transphobic agenda.”.........

MSN

Rowling is a feminist. While this is obviously below the 'trans' level on the protected class hierarchy scale, it is still funny to me that people are shocked when a feminist says feminist things, but then what else would they get to virtue signal over on the internet?