I hold FREE SPEECH as ubiquitous, the FIRST AMENDMENT the final arbitrator.

[crossfire]

Part of woke dogma.

its part of woke, it began with the work of the sexologist Dr. John Money, who performed "transsexual" operations in Baltimore, Maryland. He carried out a bizarre experiment from 1966 onwards, on a pair of twin boys named Brian and Bruce Reimer. The twins were born in Winnipeg in August 1965. When they were seven months old, an accident at a hospital destroyed Bruce's penis. Dr. Money advised the distraught family was that he could turn Bruce into a girl. When Bruce was 18 months old, he was castrated and brought up as a girl with the name Brenda. The experiment ended in failure, and in disaster as first of all Bruce on growing up decided to regain his male identity, then later both twins, victims of this disturbing experiment, committed suicide.

I would point out that this demonstrates that "assigned" gender does not always work out, and can have devastating psychological effects

Since the time of Dr. Money, who coined ''gender affirmation' understanding of the human genome has advanced and we now know that a child's sex is fixed from the point of conception, and is inscribed in every cell of his or her body, including those of the brain.

I would label this as gender dogma, as there are circumstances that can arise in utereo that will cause a genetically xy male to develop into an anatomical female.

Each cell contains either two "X" chromosomes (indicating a female), or one "X" and one "Y" chromosome (indicating a male); this genetic marker of gender cannot be changed.

Agreed that the genetic chromosomes cannot be changed.

Hormones present in the womb may influence secondary sexual characteristics,

As mentioned above, in utereo circumstances can occur that cause a genetically xy male to develop into an anatomical female. What a conundrum!

but nothing can change the sex of a child, or of an adult. There is a growing body of evidence that attempting to do so is harmful and cases of ex-transsexuals who regret and try to reverse their decision.

The evidence seems to suggest that assigned gender does not always work out, and in cases where it doesn't work out, it can have harmful psychological consequences. The question is then: what is the best way to mitigate the harm? I would suggest that it would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis, with an emphasis on what would produce the best psychological outcome for any given individual, with care taken to not project ones own biases onto another individual.

 

[Left Coast]

Part of woke dogma.

Did you decide if you like religion and dogma yet? I never got an answer.

its part of woke, it began with the work of the sexologist Dr. John Money, who performed "transsexual" operations in Baltimore, Maryland. He carried out a bizarre experiment from 1966 onwards, on a pair of twin boys named Brian and Bruce Reimer. The twins were born in Winnipeg in August 1965. When they were seven months old, an accident at a hospital destroyed Bruce's penis. Dr. Money advised the distraught family was that he could turn Bruce into a girl. When Bruce was 18 months old, he was castrated and brought up as a girl with the name Brenda. The experiment ended in failure, and in disaster as first of all Bruce on growing up decided to regain his male identity, then later both twins, victims of this disturbing experiment, committed suicide.

Okay, so 'gender dogma' is a botched transition of a non-trans person that no one today would endorse. Okay, so who actually subscribes to this? Literally no one alive today who I've ever heard give an opinion.

Since the time of Dr. Money, who coined ''gender affirmation' understanding of the human genome has advanced and we now know that a child's sex is fixed from the point of conception, and is inscribed in every cell of his or her body, including those of the brain. Each cell contains either two "X" chromosomes (indicating a female), or one "X" and one "Y" chromosome (indicating a male); this genetic marker of gender cannot be changed. Hormones present in the womb may influence secondary sexual characteristics, but nothing can change the sex of a child, or of an adult.

You're conflating sex and gender here. I don't know anyone who denies that most people have either XX or XY sex chromosomes. That's biological sex. Gender is a function of culture and individual psychology, such as girls liking pink and boys liking blue.

So is 'gender dogma' just, acknowledging that gender is different than sex?

There is a growing body of evidence that attempting to do so is harmful and cases of ex-transsexuals who regret and try to reverse their decision.

No, there really isn't. Very few trans folks detransition. And medical transition is just one aspect of transition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

will return later, of course, i could get very Nietzschean

Since you have returned I would like an answer.

 

[The Hammer]

Secularism leads to lack of self control

Nope . Way wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

did you really expect an honest answer?

No, not really.

 

[LeftyLen]

Nope . Way wrong.

If I lived 200 years ago in Europe, I would have been tempted by the argument that reason alone, without God, religion and sacred texts, can lead us society to decency. After the vileness of the French Revolution; the horrors of two secular doctrines, Nazism and Communism; the low moral state of universities; and the moral cowardice and appeasement of evil in contemporary secular Europe, one has to be — ironically — a true believer to believe that reason alone will lead us to a more moral world. Of course, we need reason. But we also need God and moral religion. in the vacuum left by the death or religion there is a replacement, the religion of leftism has always been a secular religion, it presents itself as a secular alternative.

It certainly provides meaning. “Anti-racism” and saving the world from a threat to its very existence (global warming) are two prominent life-filling examples as opposed to saving ones self, there is group salvation

Therefore, the only way to prevent the left from destroying America and its core value of freedom is to make the case for Judeo-Christian religions, the importance of marriage and family, and the unique achievement of America as the world’s first and greatest multiracial, multiethnic, multinational society.

 

[LeftyLen]

since the child maintained a male identify through out his life it is dishonest in the extreme to call it a transsexual operation.


False the term was first used in the 1920's by Dr, Magnus Hirschfeld and other physicians conducted the first formal studies and transsexuals


You should learn the difference between sex and gender

Well that is just a lie. the largest study of transgender individuals fount that almost universally trans individuals who transitioned found great improvement in their daily lives including
Improved quality of life
Greater relationship satisfaction
Higher self-esteem and confidence
Reductions in anxiety, depression, suicidality, and substance use

The fact is Instead of applying scientific research and peer-reviewing by independent scientific community, the partisans of gender ideology are imposing their views on the rest of the society by means of political lobbying in national and international political structures. At the same time, they uncritically and manipulatively promulgate interests and goals of activists from certain pressure groups who falsely label themselves as legitimate 'minorities' Gender ideology is the belief that biological sex and "gender" i.e. social identification as male or female, are two different things. This is a false binary division. It assumes the two things are unrelated and therefore separable. In actuality, biological sex and gender are intrinsically related and male/female identity is so written into each of our body-cells that even removing our reproductive organs does not change our sex or our gender. Gender ideology as i see claims to be entitled to redefine the common understanding of the sexuality of humans from the biological and medical perspective onto the 'culturally created' artificial construct of 'gender,' a purely subjective and feeling of oneself so that everyone can "freely choose" who he or she is or whom wants to be, male female pineapple.. This so-called 'gender identity'.[ "Gender" is nothing more than an indication of sex. The indication maybe be one of language, or of costume, or something else, but gender is only gender if it indicates biological sex. If it does not, it is a hollow signifier and not true gender.

 

[Argentbear]

The fact is Instead of applying scientific research and peer-reviewing by independent scientific community, the partisans of gender ideology are imposing their views on the rest of the society by means of political lobbying in national and international political structures.

Remind me again who is lobbying for book bans and bathroom bills

At the same time, they uncritically and manipulatively promulgate interests and goals of activists from certain pressure groups who falsely label themselves as legitimate 'minorities'

A minority is a culturally, ethnically, religious or racially distinct group that has a shared sense of collective identity and community that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group with socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not.
So yeah they are a minority

Gender ideology is the belief that biological sex and "gender" i.e. social identification as male or female, are two different things. This is a false binary division. It assumes the two things are unrelated and therefore separable. In actuality, biological sex and gender are intrinsically related and male/female identity is so written into each of our body-cells that even removing our reproductive organs does not change our sex or our gender. Gender ideology as i see claims to be entitled to redefine the common understanding of the sexuality of humans from the biological and medical perspective onto the 'culturally created' artificial construct of 'gender,' a purely subjective and feeling of oneself so that everyone can "freely choose" who he or she is or whom wants to be, male female pineapple..

Is anyone actually saying that? Um no, no one is.

 

[The Hammer]

If I lived 200 years ago in Europe, I would have been tempted by the argument that reason alone, without God, religion and sacred texts, can lead us society to decency. After the vileness of the French Revolution; the horrors of two secular doctrines, Nazism and Communism; the low moral state of universities; and the moral cowardice and appeasement of evil in contemporary secular Europe, one has to be — ironically — a true believer to believe that reason alone will lead us to a more moral world. Of course, we need reason. But we also need God and moral religion. in the vacuum left by the death or religion there is a replacement, the religion of leftism has always been a secular religion, it presents itself as a secular alternative.

It certainly provides meaning. “Anti-racism” and saving the world from a threat to its very existence (global warming) are two prominent life-filling examples as opposed to saving ones self, there is group salvation

Therefore, the only way to prevent the left from destroying America and its core value of freedom is to make the case for Judeo-Christian religions, the importance of marriage and family, and the unique achievement of America as the world’s first and greatest multiracial, multiethnic, multinational society.

Mmk.

I have no need of reading this. I responded with a one sentence reply for a reason.

 

[Pogo]

If I lived 200 years ago in Europe, I would have been tempted by the argument that reason alone, without God, religion and sacred texts, can lead us society to decency. After the vileness of the French Revolution; the horrors of two secular doctrines, Nazism and Communism; the low moral state of universities; and the moral cowardice and appeasement of evil in contemporary secular Europe, one has to be — ironically — a true believer to believe that reason alone will lead us to a more moral world. Of course, we need reason. But we also need God and moral religion. in the vacuum left by the death or religion there is a replacement, the religion of leftism has always been a secular religion, it presents itself as a secular alternative.

It certainly provides meaning. “Anti-racism” and saving the world from a threat to its very existence (global warming) are two prominent life-filling examples as opposed to saving ones self, there is group salvation

Therefore, the only way to prevent the left from destroying America and its core value of freedom is to make the case for Judeo-Christian religions, the importance of marriage and family, and the unique achievement of America as the world’s first and greatest multiracial, multiethnic, multinational society.

A most interesting mashup of Enlightenment thought with Victorian morals,

 

[LeftyLen]

A most interesting mashup of Enlightenment thought with Victorian morals,

How exactly Victorian morals come into play is a reach

 

[LeftyLen]

Mmk.

I have no need of reading this. I responded with a one sentence reply for a reason.

humm

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

will return later, of course, i could get very Nietzschean

Have you made an answer yet?

 

[anotherneil]

Salient examples, one extreme desires a book banned for being immoral, anti- authority, secularist, heretical, occultic, anti-family, etc etc etc, all to ‘protect’ children. The other extreme says a book should be banned from schools for being sexist, phobic, hater, racist, etc etc etc., all for the ‘common good’-as youth ‘must be protected.’ Besides divergence in rhetorical proclamations, left/right all book banning no matter the motivation the same thing, ‘censorship.’ The only viable censorship I see is the front door of ones own home. Outside of self-evident porn or ‘profanity,‘ I see no reason to censer anything, anything. If you don’t like what's being taught send your children to a private school or home-school. If you don’t like certain books in the library, keep your child locked up.

You cannot have it both ways; either it's ubiquitous or it's something with any exceptions, such as for porn & profanity. Which is it?

Clarity normally clears up the difference between censorship and actual inappropriateness. Now say the extreme right wants flat earth, geocentric earth, young earth taught in science class, mere clarity as to what is/is not science excludes such things from science class. Now say the fanatic left wants gender dogma in children's classes, both science and the mere idea of sexualizing children exposes it just as inappropriate as the other extreme.

Are you being purely hypothetical with the "extreme right" wanting flat earth, or is this a real thing?

 

[anotherneil]

FREE SPEECH (sic) is clearly not ubiquitous, and the reason that one cannot yell fire in the theater is precisely because the FIRST AMENDMENT (sic) is not the final arbitrator.

Since when can someone not yell fire in the theater (and yes, I'm referring to doing such a thing as a prank, not in an actual fire emergency)?

In Schenck v. United States, the corrupt & compromised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. fabricated this purely fictional & hypothetical scenario, as an analogy, and along with it, the false implication that such a precedent existed, as a lame excuse to deprive Charles Schenck of his constitutional rights.

This idea that we do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater is purely based on a lie; the basis is that when lying introduces a danger, then it is not covered by constitutional rights; I submit that this justice lied, and that this lie introduced a danger - thus by this justice's own logic, he committed the very same crime that this defendant in that case was accused of.

That being said, I am in no way suggesting that anyone ever yell fire in a crowded theater, unless there really is a fire.

I'll also add that this idea that yelling fire in a crowded theater does not necessarily pose a clear and present danger; it might be disruptive to the theater, or it might just cause movie-goers to get curious and want to see this fire (that would make sense for a group of people who went somewhere to be entertained to begin with).

 

[LeftyLen]

You cannot have it both ways; either it's ubiquitous or it's something with any exceptions, such as for porn & profanity. Which is it?


Are you being purely hypothetical with the "extreme right" wanting flat earth, or is this a real thing?

its a 'real thing' indeed, if you are familiar with creationism.

 

[anotherneil]

its a 'real thing' indeed, if you are familiar with creationism.

I'm familiar with creationism, but not flat earth belief being part of it. From what I understand about flat earth belief, it includes people who are atheist & non-religious, etc.

 

[Pogo]

I'm familiar with creationism, but not flat earth belief being part of it. From what I understand about flat earth belief, it includes people who are atheist & non-religious, etc.

You might find one of each.

 

[crossfire]

<...>

Therefore, the only way to prevent the left from destroying America and its core value of freedom is to make the case for Judeo-Christian religions,

No one is saying you cannot practice Judeo-Christian religions. I don't think any leftist would disagree with Jesus at Matt 22:36-40, either. I suppose you could take a poll.

36 “Teacher, which command in the law is the greatest?”


37 He said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and most important command. 39 The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.”​

the importance of marriage and family,

It might be a problem for young people to get married and start families if they don't have the economic means to do so.

and the unique achievement of America as the world’s first and greatest multiracial, multiethnic, multinational society.

No argument here.

 

[LeftyLen]

No one is saying you cannot practice Judeo-Christian religions. I don't think any leftist would disagree with Jesus at Matt 22:36-40, either. I suppose you could take a poll.

​

36 “Teacher, which command in the law is the greatest?”​

​

​

37 He said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and most important command. 39 The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.”​

It might be a problem for young people to get married and start families if they don't have the economic means to do so.

No argument here.

. "... is to make the case for Judeo-Christian religions" yes in the public square but not in any way via government. Yes following the first two commandments will be the impetuous for the rest. //Marriage yes, economics a separate topic.