Biden declares Easter "Transgender Day of Visibility" - Page 15

TxAgPreacher

1:49p, 4/3/24

Rocag said:
It's absolutely debatable, especially if you aren't going to present this evidence showing it's better "in every objective metric". I see no reason to believe that is true and you've given no reason to do so either.

How about this metric: Violence Committed Against Transgender People. Do you think societies in which transgenderism is accepted have higher rates of violence against transgender people than those which ban it? Can you present any evidence that it is?

First result out of liberal UCLA: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/transpop-suicide-press-release/

Quote:
Nearly one-third of transgender individuals reported hazardous drinking (28%) and problematic drug use (31%).
Among transgender adults, 44% reported recent suicidal ideation, 7% reported a recent suicide attempt, and 21% reported recent non-suicidal self-injury.
The majority (82%) of transgender people have accessed formal mental health care, compared to 47% of cisgender adults. About one-quarter (26%) of transgender people sought support from other sources such as religious and spiritual leaders and alternative medicine practitioners, compared to 20% of cisgender adults.
Transgender nonbinary people were four times more likely to engage in hazardous drinking compared to transgender women.
Compared to transgender men, transgender nonbinary people were four times more likely to report problematic drug use, three times more likely to experience serious psychological distress, six times more likely to have recently thought about suicide, and four times more likely to have engaged in non-suicidal self-injury at some point in their lives.

Looks bad by every metric so far. Can you name five positive objective metrics?

TxAgPreacher

2:05p, 4/3/24

You can't prove that point either about violence against "trans".

I would expect countries that have more "trans" have more violence against "trans". So the ones that are tolerant of it ironically will be more violent towards them. I would guess the countries that do not allow it at all, would have very little. Because there would be no "trans" there.

Rocag

2:08p, 4/3/24

You didn't even attempt to answer my question.

And I don't disagree with your statistics, but I do disagree with your analysis of them. Our society is not very welcoming or friendly to transgender people. Lots of them grow up being told something is wrong with them for something that they can't control. Many of them even grow up in religious households that preach the same thing that you are right in this thread. That transgenderism is evil and abhorrent to God. How do you think a person who is both transgender and believes that is going feel? Is it any surprise they have higher rates of mental health issues?

TxAgPreacher

2:09p, 4/3/24

To be clear I do not believe you can change your sex, and gender is meaningless outside of biological sex so, no I don't think you can "transition" into anything. Your biology remains the same.

Seemingly these people have always existed, but it is only when we allow them to "transition" that their suicide rate skyrocketed.

That's because its the ideology that is killing them.

TxAgPreacher

2:10p, 4/3/24

In reply to Rocag

Rocag said:
Is it any surprise they have higher rates of mental health issues?

Until very recently Transsexualism was, correctly, categorized of as a mental health issue itself.

HumpitPuryear

2:11p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

TxAgPreacher said:
Rocag said:
It's absolutely debatable, especially if you aren't going to present this evidence showing it's better "in every objective metric". I see no reason to believe that is true and you've given no reason to do so either.

How about this metric: Violence Committed Against Transgender People. Do you think societies in which transgenderism is accepted have higher rates of violence against transgender people than those which ban it? Can you present any evidence that it is?
First result out of liberal UCLA: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/transpop-suicide-press-release/
Quote:
Nearly one-third of transgender individuals reported hazardous drinking (28%) and problematic drug use (31%).
Among transgender adults, 44% reported recent suicidal ideation, 7% reported a recent suicide attempt, and 21% reported recent non-suicidal self-injury.
The majority (82%) of transgender people have accessed formal mental health care, compared to 47% of cisgender adults. About one-quarter (26%) of transgender people sought support from other sources such as religious and spiritual leaders and alternative medicine practitioners, compared to 20% of cisgender adults.
Transgender nonbinary people were four times more likely to engage in hazardous drinking compared to transgender women.
Compared to transgender men, transgender nonbinary people were four times more likely to report problematic drug use, three times more likely to experience serious psychological distress, six times more likely to have recently thought about suicide, and four times more likely to have engaged in non-suicidal self-injury at some point in their lives.
Looks bad by every metric so far. Can you name five positive objective metrics?

Transgender women are blowing past records in any women's sport they are allowed to compete in. That's something I guess.

kurt vonnegut

2:14p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

TxAgPreacher said:
kurt vonnegut said:
TxAgPreacher said:
kurt vonnegut said:
TxAgPreacher said:
To get us back on topic, the point behind the discussion on objective truth, was to point out that some thing are objectively bad, and some are objectively good. We have those siding with moral relativism, postmodernism, and queer theory(even if they didn't realize it), and those who believe that there is evidence for why traditional values objectively, and scientifically give better outcomes. I got this view from God's word, but it is confirmed by science, and is repeatable, and verifiable. The same cannot be said for Transitioning. The outcomes are horrible. Transsexualism is bad for society and we don't want it pushed. Obviously we believe traditional values are good.

This is the impasse of the whole discussion, and why we go round and round.

It is my position that the question of whether 'x' is moral or not is NOT a scientific question. Do you agree or disagree?

As far as evaluating values based on their outcome, I don't believe you have addressed the fact that different people have different definitions of what their desired outcome is. Apologies if I missed it.

Answer the questions, and I'll engage.
Quote:
Quote:
You answer the question, is slavery objectively bad?

Man its like pulling teeth. These people refuse to make any statement of truth. Is transsexualism good, or even ok? If so on what basis? Why is it ok? Is it harmful?

The follow-up is, do traditional values give the best outcomes?
What is a woman? What is transsexualism?

As I understand it. Note that I don't claim expertise. My 7, 5, and 2 year old's know what a woman is. You don't need to be an expert. This subjectivism only causes problems, and overcomplicates, and leads to madness, and bad outcomes.

Female is a term denoting a distinct biological sex. Adult human female. It is an objective fact xx chromosomes. So are "transwomen" women?

Woman is a term relating to gender generally associated with the female sex. I reject this idea. It has no bases in fact. It is in fact a social construct made up to muddy the waters of biological sex.

I'm not going to define transsexualism because I have never once used it in this thread. If its a term you wish to introduce, then I think you need to define it. I don't think you can
I'm not being uncivil by pointing out a refusal to answer a simple questions. I find it very weasley, and telling. I also find it telling that you only halfheartedly tried to answer one question out of the eight, and one of the least important ones at that. I didn't rank order them, and you don't know where I'm going with this so that's fine. I don't expect you to read my mind. What it tells me is that your fundamental rejection of even basic truths precludes you from being able to identify simple truth's, and to make proper conclusions about morality. Rape is always bad. I offered these two questions because at least its a starting point, and because eventually its gets to the point that "transwomen" are not real women, and that the transgender ideology is counterfactual.

If you don't want to define transsexualism then fine. I don't want to quarrel about words. For the sake of argument when you read transsexualism just replace it with transgenderism. I even use the term "gender roles" accommodatively, although I reject the concept of gender separated from sex entirely. That is off topic so lets set it aside.

I'm still waiting on this because they are FAR more important to the argument.
Quote:
You answer the question, is slavery objectively bad?

Man its like pulling teeth. These people refuse to make any statement of truth. Is transsexualism good, or even ok? If so on what basis? Why is it ok? Is it harmful?

The follow-up is, do traditional values give the best outcomes?
Is "transgenderism" when put into practice good? Ok? Bad?
Are traditional values when put into practice good? Ok? Bad?

Which produces better outcomes? Because they are not even close even subjectively.

This will probably be a long one:

Biologically, humans are distinctly male or female. Perhaps there are some very rare exceptions or mutations, but that isn't what we are discussing here. I recognize the two distinct biological sexes and I do believe that they are important. For example, I do not support trans women competing in female sports because there is a biological difference that violates the intention behind separate male / female sports.

Whether introducing a more nuanced definition to 'woman' or 'gender' is necessary or not is a difficult question for me to answer. This is me acknowledging my own ignorance and my own intellectual or experience-related short comings. I don't experience gender dysphoria, so its difficult for me to relate. Is a trans woman a woman? I don't know. There is a part of me that just really doesn't care - except for where it has potential to affect someone directly - like the sports example.

I can define transsexualism. I choose not to because its not a term I've used or that has been part of any of my arguments. In all fairness, you have to admit that its not fair to force me to define a term that you are using and no one else is. If I use a term that needs defining, then I should be prepared to define it. If I can swap it out for the word transgender moving forward, then I will.

Transgender definition - denoting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex registered to them at birth. I stole that from dictionary.com. But, I think its a perfectly adequate definition.

Before I move onto your other questions - I want to talk about why I said a part of my just really doesn't care. Lets assume that you are correct that transgenderism is a lie and that there is no distinction between biological sex and gender. It doesn't change how I treat someone that claims to be transgender. As an example - if an adult man wants to identify as a woman, dress like a woman, wear make up, have surgeries, and take estrogen . . . why is that my business? Culturally, unlike some other places, I think many Americans have a sort of inherent distrust of government control and a fervent demand for the right to our own individuality. We demand that government stay out of our business. Clearly its something I've taken to heart.

So, if a man wants to call himself a woman. Okay. I don't know if I agree or not. I see multiple sides of the argument. And I think my inability to empathize with gender dysphoria makes it hard for me to understand it. But, if it doesn't affect me, then 'you do you'.

If you want to get into questions about under age persons, bathrooms and health insurance responsibilities and sports and other questions that arise, we can get into those questions. I believe that I'm less 'radical' than perhaps you think I am. But questions about basic rights, basic allowances to participate and contribute to society, to practice their ideology, etc. there is no compromise as far as I am concerned. The truth or fiction of transgenderism is irrelevant, to me, in whether a trans persons deserves the same basic human dignity. Period.

Is slavery objectively bad? Short answer: No. Longer answer: Whether objective morals handed down from God exist or not is an objective question. The answer is yes or no and is not subject to opinion. That said, I am unconvinced that God given objecive morals exist or that there would be any way for any of us to understand them without subjective lenses anyway. So, while God given objective morals might exist, pragmatically speaking, my personal beliefs effectively assume they do not.

Is Transgenderism good? Or Okay? Without a belief in an objective morality handed from God, all I can offer is my opinion. I think that perhaps transgenderism is neither good nor bad. It may be the equivalent of asking if green eyes is good or bad or okay? Green eyes are not good or bad or okay. They just are. Its just something that happens.

Is it harmful? My wife has a good friend that she grew up with who is trans. I've known them for probably 20 years. Not super well, but well enough. For this person, I don't think transitioning has been harmful. They are, as far as I can tell, well adjusted and happy and productive. And their transition and lifestyle does not inhibit me from anything I wish to do or believe or say in my life. Of course this is anecdotal. I can think of places where harm can be done here. For example, I am not in favor of allowing transitions at certain younger ages. But, I definitely don't see transgenderism as wholesale harmful.

Do traditional values give the best outcomes? I believe I've answered this question. It may not be an answer you find satisfactory, but I'm telling you that it is my sincere answer to the question. Reposting that response here:

Quote:
Using science to validate moral and value statements means you aren't using science. Nevertheless, I'm open to exploring what I think you mean with this statement.

First, I think we need to ask a question to identify the objectives that determine 'best outcome'. What is the metric being used? Is it mental health, physical health, level of education, wealth, material success, how often someone prays, how many followers they have on twitter? And then I think we need to ask if there are other family arrangements that can also result in desired outcomes. I think that questions like this are important to ask because we may have different definitions of what the best outcome is. Even amongst Christians, I would bet that you will find variation in answers to these questions.

I don't think this is a dodge. If you've define 'best outcome' as the outcome that most promotes and follows Christian values. . . . . then yes, traditional Christian values offer the best outcome. But, surely you see that the logic here is circular.

If I define 'best outcome' in terms of happiness or contentment or fulfillment, then there may be different values that offer the best result. At a minimum, people are different and may require different value inputs in order to achieve the 'best outcome' for that person.

Quote:
Is "transgenderism" when put into practice good? Ok? Bad?
Are traditional values when put into practice good? Ok? Bad?

Which produces better outcomes? Because they are not even close even subjectively.

I believe that I've covered these sufficiently above. If you disagree, let me know and I'll expand.

I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. If I've missed something please let me know and I'll be happy to respond to it.

Rocag

2:14p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

How are you calculating the suicide rates of transgender people who haven't come out as transgender? How could you possibly know?

kurt vonnegut

2:22p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

A few questions for you that I do not believe you addressed. Apologies If I missed your responses:

[The first question was asked in the context of what the role of the government ought to be in questions of legislation related to the morality or immorality of LGBTQ lifestyles - particular transgender lifestyles]

Quote:
I am only interested in challenging what you think the role of government ought to be. So. . . what should the role of government be?

Quote:
All of that said, I know I've made suggestions that you may be in favor of Christian fascist theocracy. So that we understand where you stand, what do you favor?

Quote:
I'm going to differ from MacArthur here and say that your religion is absolutely being attacked in this thread. I think a line ought to be drawn at personal attacks, but ideas should absolutely be on the table for criticism and attack. Unless you think we should not be permitted to speak out against Christianity? Should it be made illegal to criticize Christianity?

TxAgPreacher

2:24p, 4/3/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

Thank you for a thoughtful response! I just think your worldview is bad. I'm sure you're a nice person. I don't know how to say this, and it not sound snarky. I'm not trying to be, I'm trying to confidently make my argument.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid your false equivalency between green eyes, and any serious moral issue just showcases your corrupt moral compass born out of a rejection of simple truth.

I do believe some things are objectively true. I'm not trying to be ugly, but I think your ideology causes you to not be able to say simple things like rape( or slavery) is always wrong.

I think some outcomes are objectively better. Lack of mental illness, severe alcohol or drug abuse ect.

I think its intellectually dishonest, and pretending not to notice overall how things are going. Look at fatherlessness and you'll see its best for Children to be raised in the nuclear family. Its not disputed. Its fact. Facts exist. I understand they are inconvenient to your argument, but they do. Every metric I look up for transgenders is worse than the general pop.

Rongagin71

2:26p, 4/3/24

In reply to HumpitPuryear

HumpitPuryear said:
TxAgPreacher said:
Rocag said:
It's absolutely debatable, especially if you aren't going to present this evidence showing it's better "in every objective metric". I see no reason to believe that is true and you've given no reason to do so either.

How about this metric: Violence Committed Against Transgender People. Do you think societies in which transgenderism is accepted have higher rates of violence against transgender people than those which ban it? Can you present any evidence that it is?
First result out of liberal UCLA: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/transpop-suicide-press-release/
Quote:
Nearly one-third of transgender individuals reported hazardous drinking (28%) and problematic drug use (31%).
Among transgender adults, 44% reported recent suicidal ideation, 7% reported a recent suicide attempt, and 21% reported recent non-suicidal self-injury.
The majority (82%) of transgender people have accessed formal mental health care, compared to 47% of cisgender adults. About one-quarter (26%) of transgender people sought support from other sources such as religious and spiritual leaders and alternative medicine practitioners, compared to 20% of cisgender adults.
Transgender nonbinary people were four times more likely to engage in hazardous drinking compared to transgender women.
Compared to transgender men, transgender nonbinary people were four times more likely to report problematic drug use, three times more likely to experience serious psychological distress, six times more likely to have recently thought about suicide, and four times more likely to have engaged in non-suicidal self-injury at some point in their lives.
Looks bad by every metric so far. Can you name five positive objective metrics?
Transgender women are blowing past records in any women's sport they are allowed to compete in. That's something I guess.

I'm sure you are talking about men competing as women,
because women competing as men aren't doing so well.
Makes me wonder why Title 9 isn.t doing a better job
of protecting women.

TxAgPreacher

2:31p, 4/3/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

kurt vonnegut said:
A few questions for you that I do not believe you addressed. Apologies If I missed your responses:

[The first question was asked in the context of what the role of the government ought to be in questions of legislation related to the morality or immorality of LGBTQ lifestyles - particular transgender lifestyles]

Quote:
I am only interested in challenging what you think the role of government ought to be. So. . . what should the role of government be?

Quote:
All of that said, I know I've made suggestions that you may be in favor of Christian fascist theocracy. So that we understand where you stand, what do you favor?

Quote:
I'm going to differ from MacArthur here and say that your religion is absolutely being attacked in this thread. I think a line ought to be drawn at personal attacks, but ideas should absolutely be on the table for criticism and attack. Unless you think we should not be permitted to speak out against Christianity? Should it be made illegal to criticize Christianity?

Legally everyone should be treated the same under the law, and nobody gets extra rights, or special protections. Other than that the federal government should say out of it. On the state level, states should be allowed to make whatever moral laws they want so long as they do not violate our God given rights. God limits me on what I am allowed to bind on my fellow man in His law. I'm a strict constitutionalist.

Everyone should be treated with basic dignity, and respect. However I do not have to accept sinful, and harmful lifestyles. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I hate you.

Zero tolerance socially. In other words let the churches handle it. If you believe different than me then find a community that will support you. Life was better and simpler before all the subversive ideologies were accepted in the name of tolerance. My great uncle owned a hometown grocery store, and they used to fire people if they got a divorce. I believe social pressure is the way to end this ideological contagion. private companies don't have to employ those who engage in sinful practices and refuse to repent.

TxAgPreacher

2:39p, 4/3/24

In reply to Rocag

Rocag said:
How are you calculating the suicide rates of transgender people who haven't come out as transgender? How could you possibly know?

Good point!

Which is why the question is pointless.

Captain Pablo

2:41p, 4/3/24

In reply to Rocag

Rocag said:
How are you calculating the suicide rates of transgender people who haven't come out as transgender? How could you possibly know?

Well, how does MacArthur calculate the "millions of lives saved" by gender affirming medical care for minors?

Macarthur

2:45p, 4/3/24

In reply to Captain Pablo

I don't say millions. I said many and that is a fact.

Macarthur

2:45p, 4/3/24

In reply to Macarthur

Macarthur said:
Rongagin71 said:
Sapper Redux said:
TxAgPreacher said:
Secular people should agree, because the ideology behind transsexualism is harmful to them too!

The way folks like you treat transgender people as borderline non-humans is disturbing.
The real cruelty is when children are pressured to have life changing surgery that cannot ever be totally repaired.

I think the problem here is that you are taking incredibly rare instances that had negative outcomes and extrapolating that over the entire group of practitioners that have had overwhelmingly positive outcomes and have literally saved many kids lives. If something goes horribly wrong, it should be treated like any other medical malpractice.

Captain Pablo

2:47p, 4/3/24

In reply to Macarthur

Macarthur said:
I don't say millions. I said many and that is a fact.

Sure it is

How many?

How many lives destroyed because they were permanently altered as minors and later regretted it and/or experienced physical or mental distress because of it?

Got those numbers?

kurt vonnegut

2:47p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

TxAgPreacher said:
Thank you for a thoughtful response! I just think your worldview is bad. I'm sure you're a nice person. I don't know how to say this, and it not sound snarky. I'm not trying to be, I'm trying to confidently make my argument.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid your false equivalency between green eyes, and any serious moral issue just showcases your corrupt moral compass born out of a rejection of simple truth.

I do believe some things are objectively true. I'm not trying to be ugly, but I think your ideology causes you to not be able to say simple things like rape is always wrong.

I think some outcomes are objectively better. Lack of mental illness, severe alcohol or drug abuse ect.

I think its intellectually dishonest, and pretending not to notice overall how things are going. Look at fatherlessness and you'll see its best for Children to be raised in the nuclear family. Its not disputed. Its fact. Facts exist. I understand they are inconvenient to your argument, but they do. Every metric I look up for transgenders is worse than the general pop.

Look, I think your worldview is bad as well. When you tell me that, I don't take it personally. And you shouldn't take it personally when I say it. I'm a firm believer in attacking ideas / not people.

Moral relativism is uncomfortable, even for me. You are correct that I cannot say 'rape is always wrong'. And I recognize the internal conflict and cognitive dissonance that this creates in me. I think that moral relativism may be an inevitable part and natural conclusion of atheism. Sam Harris disagrees, but I think that all he does is take moral relativism and put objective moral make up on it and call it something else. If you want to understand what I think and why, you have to pretend that you do not believe in God or in God given objective morals. I tried something like this in a thread a couple months ago with mixed results. But, if you are willing to participate in the hypothetical - if someday you were to stop believing in God, what are the moral ideologies you would eventually land on. Personally, I've spent hundreds of hours considering it and it took a while before I was okay calling myself a moral relativist.

I can't force myself to believe something I think is false. And I'm not willing to pretend to be something I'm not.

I think we should be careful when looking at statistics. Half of this country think trans people are disgusting, sick, perverted, and everything wrong in the world. And they are not afraid to voice that opinion. To think that this doesn't cause harm to trans people is what I think is dishonest.

Does the traditional nuclear family produce the best results. Ignoring all of the objections I have to the way you've asked the question, the answer is almost certainly 'yes'. It doesn't mean that its the only way to produce good results and it doesn't mean that its the best for everyone.

Last thing - You have made a lot of assertions in this thread about what is objectively true. And you obviously have strong opinions and strong views. I find these discussions run into difficulties early and often when both sides are not willing to consider the other side's point of view. In other words, if you know that everything I'm going to say will be wrong before I even say it. . . . why bother? For us to get the most out of this discussion, I think you need to consider the possibility that you are wrong. And of course, I need to be able to do the same. The alternative is just us shouting back and forth "I'm right. Youre wrong."

TxAgPreacher

2:49p, 4/3/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

Ok well I find you tolerable to talk to in the end, and far more honest than the others on this thread.

I hope you stop being so confused, and give up your relativism. It feels really good!

kurt vonnegut

2:59p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

TxAgPreacher said:

Life was better and simpler before all the subversive ideologies were accepted in the name of tolerance. My great uncle owned a hometown grocery store, and they used to fire people if they got a divorce.

Things definitely used to be simpler. But, better depends on who you ask.

Imagine if I said life would be better if everyone just beat the hell out of Christians, forced them into secrecy, and forced them to be the most hated marginalized pariahs of society. While I understand you are not calling for violence against anyway, this was the reality for many many people prior to these 'subversive ideologies'.

There is no doubt that we are witnessing a massive social revolution that has begun playing out and will play out for decades to come. I would never ask you to accept or believe anything you don't want to. But, my hope is that more and more people will understand others (like trans people) with a bit of actual love and humility rather than disgust and hate. Not implying that you hate. . . but, I think its hard to deny that there is no shortage of hate.

Rocag

3:00p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

TxAgPreacher said:
Rocag said:
How are you calculating the suicide rates of transgender people who haven't come out as transgender? How could you possibly know?
Good point!

Which is why the question is pointless.

But you were the one that brought up suicides, not me. My question was specifically about violence committed against transgender people.

Sapper Redux

3:05p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

TxAgPreacher said:
To be clear I do not believe you can change your sex, and gender is meaningless outside of biological sex so, no I don't think you can "transition" into anything. Your biology remains the same.

Seemingly these people have always existed, but it is only when we allow them to "transition" that their suicide rate skyrocketed.

That's because its the ideology that is killing them.

So if someone isn't allowed to admit they are transgender and commit suicide, it doesn't count? This is like complaining that wife beating wasn't a problem until they started asking about wife beating.

TxAgPreacher

3:06p, 4/3/24

In reply to Sapper Redux

Sapper Redux said:
TxAgPreacher said:
To be clear I do not believe you can change your sex, and gender is meaningless outside of biological sex so, no I don't think you can "transition" into anything. Your biology remains the same.

Seemingly these people have always existed, but it is only when we allow them to "transition" that their suicide rate skyrocketed.

That's because its the ideology that is killing them.

So if someone isn't allowed to admit they are transgender and commit suicide, it doesn't count? This is like complaining that wife beating wasn't a problem until they started asking about wife beating.

False choice.

Sapper Redux

3:07p, 4/3/24

In reply to Captain Pablo

Captain Pablo said:
Macarthur said:
I don't say millions. I said many and that is a fact.

Sure it is

How many?

How many lives destroyed because they were permanently altered as minors and later regretted it and/or experienced physical or mental distress because of it?

Got those numbers?

How many lives destroyed because they were abused about their gender / sexuality to the point that they gave up trying to be happy?

Sapper Redux

3:10p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

TxAgPreacher said:
Sapper Redux said:
TxAgPreacher said:
To be clear I do not believe you can change your sex, and gender is meaningless outside of biological sex so, no I don't think you can "transition" into anything. Your biology remains the same.

Seemingly these people have always existed, but it is only when we allow them to "transition" that their suicide rate skyrocketed.

That's because its the ideology that is killing them.

So if someone isn't allowed to admit they are transgender and commit suicide, it doesn't count? This is like complaining that wife beating wasn't a problem until they started asking about wife beating.
False choice.

No it's not. You're trying to claim suicide only became an issue for transgender people when transgender people were allowed to be open with who they are. We know that's not the case. And the numbers of transgender people who suffered violence or committed suicide before social acceptance of the existence of transgender people can't be known, but based on what we know about gay and lesbian people during periods of repression, it's almost certainly higher (by a lot) than today. We can just take a peek today and see that rates of suicide and violence are typically higher in states that are more antagonistic towards transgender people.
https://www.keranews.org/health-wellness/2021-12-08/survey-finds-lgbtq-youth-in-the-south-are-at-greater-risk-for-suicide?_amp=true

AGC

3:11p, 4/3/24

In reply to kurt vonnegut

kurt vonnegut said:
TxAgPreacher said:

Life was better and simpler before all the subversive ideologies were accepted in the name of tolerance. My great uncle owned a hometown grocery store, and they used to fire people if they got a divorce.

Things definitely used to be simpler. But, better depends on who you ask.

Imagine if I said life would be better if everyone just beat the hell out of Christians, forced them into secrecy, and forced them to be the most hated marginalized pariahs of society. While I understand you are not calling for violence against anyway, this was the reality for many many people prior to these 'subversive ideologies'.

There is no doubt that we are witnessing a massive social revolution that has begun playing out and will play out for decades to come. I would never ask you to accept or believe anything you don't want to. But, my hope is that more and more people will understand others (like trans people) with a bit of actual love and humility rather than disgust and hate. Not implying that you hate. . . but, I think it's hard to deny that there is no shortage of hate.

I'm not sure the idea ("depends on who you ask") is appropriate or reasonable. People thought differently before many different philosophies were released into the world (the enlightenment, critical theories, etc.). You can't take your way of thinking and project it backwards to assume some wrong took place. That's anachronistic and egotistical (not as a slander, but to say centering your way of thinking as a measure of how everyone throughout history has ever thought). Facts not in evidence.

Captain Pablo

3:15p, 4/3/24

In reply to Sapper Redux

Sapper Redux said:
Captain Pablo said:
Macarthur said:
I don't say millions. I said many and that is a fact.

Sure it is

How many?

How many lives destroyed because they were permanently altered as minors and later regretted it and/or experienced physical or mental distress because of it?

Got those numbers?

How many lives destroyed because they were abused about their gender / sexuality to the point that they gave up trying to be happy?

You tell me

Post all the numbers

Regardless of those numbers, get all the surgery you want when you're an adult

In the mean time, leave the kids alone.

TxAgPreacher

3:17p, 4/3/24

In reply to Captain Pablo

Captain Pablo said:
Sapper Redux said:
Captain Pablo said:
Macarthur said:
I don't say millions. I said many and that is a fact.

Sure it is

How many?

How many lives destroyed because they were permanently altered as minors and later regretted it and/or experienced physical or mental distress because of it?

Got those numbers?

How many lives destroyed because they were abused about their gender / sexuality to the point that they gave up trying to be happy?

You tell me

Post all the numbers

~~Regardless of those numbers, get all the surgery you want when you're an adult~~

In the mean time, leave the kids alone.

TxAgPreacher

3:22p, 4/3/24

People were happier when they just had to work to make a living. They had no time to incessantly wish they were a different gender, or make up ways in which they are "oppressed"

Perhaps they were oppressed in many ways, but these radical ideologies have harmed, not helped.

Sapper Redux

3:24p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

TxAgPreacher said:
People were happier when they just had to work to make a living. They had no time to incessantly wish they were a different gender, or make up ways in which they are "oppressed"

Perhaps they were oppressed in many ways, but these radical ideologies have harmed, not helped.

Your perception of the past is beyond warped.

Macarthur

3:25p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

lol. Man oh man.

TxAgPreacher

3:26p, 4/3/24

Really, well were did you get the idea that you can change your "gender"?

kurt vonnegut

3:28p, 4/3/24

In reply to AGC

AGC said:
kurt vonnegut said:
TxAgPreacher said:

Life was better and simpler before all the subversive ideologies were accepted in the name of tolerance. My great uncle owned a hometown grocery store, and they used to fire people if they got a divorce.

Things definitely used to be simpler. But, better depends on who you ask.

Imagine if I said life would be better if everyone just beat the hell out of Christians, forced them into secrecy, and forced them to be the most hated marginalized pariahs of society. While I understand you are not calling for violence against anyway, this was the reality for many many people prior to these 'subversive ideologies'.

There is no doubt that we are witnessing a massive social revolution that has begun playing out and will play out for decades to come. I would never ask you to accept or believe anything you don't want to. But, my hope is that more and more people will understand others (like trans people) with a bit of actual love and humility rather than disgust and hate. Not implying that you hate. . . but, I think it's hard to deny that there is no shortage of hate.

I'm not sure the idea ("depends on who you ask") is appropriate or reasonable. People thought differently before many different philosophies were released into the world (the enlightenment, critical theories, etc.). You can't take your way of thinking and project it backwards to assume some wrong took place. That's anachronistic and egotistical (not as a slander, but to say centering your way of thinking as a measure of how everyone throughout history has ever thought). Facts not in evidence.

I don't understand your objection. When social change occurs there are often some people that agree with it and some people that disagree. Do say that things were 'better' before some social change occurred is to state an opinion that may not be shared by everyone. This isn't about me or my way of thinking. Lets go out and find a bunch of 80 year old gays and ask them if they'd prefer to live in their childhood society where they were denied equal rights and openly legally marginalized or if they'd prefer to live now.

I am saying that the 'better' part of the statement: "Life was better and simpler before all the subversive ideologies were accepted in the name of tolerance." is undeniably subjective. Do you not agree?

kurt vonnegut

3:30p, 4/3/24

In reply to TxAgPreacher

TxAgPreacher said:
People were happier when they just had to work to make a living. They had no time to incessantly wish they were a different gender, or make up ways in which they are "oppressed"

Perhaps they were oppressed in many ways, but these radical ideologies have harmed, not helped.

With all due respect, why don't we let people decide for themselves whether they've been harmed or helped?

DeProfundis

3:31p, 4/3/24

Happiness isn't found in making the most money, or in great achievement, it's found in having your breasts or ***** cut off, or having flesh taken from your arm to make a weird joystick that resembles a Dali painting of a man's genitalia.