South Carolina OKs ban on gender affirming care.

[Shadow Wolf]

Why does it need defending? From what? What even is "white culture?" Is it even a thing?

What black comedians like Richard Pryor make fun of?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What's wrong with white culture, or defending it? Or any other culture? Is culture suddenly a bad thing now? Or is being white bad?

Congratulations for providing a perfect example of what I just explained.

Tell me, when people campaigned against de-segregating schools under the slogan "whites have rights too", what do you think they were actually saying? Do you think they were just acknowledging the simple fact that rights extend to white people as well as other races, or do you think they were trying to suggest something else? Like, I dunno, suggesting that the expansion of black rights to be equal to whites was implicitly impinging on the rights of white people, specifically, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT SEGREGATION TO BE TAKEN AWAY, BECAUSE THEY WERE RACISTS?

By a similar note, when people campaign against "multi-culturalism" or against immigration on the basis of "defending white culture", do you genuinely take these people at face-value, or do you understand that what they're doing is no different to the above? Like, I dunno, trying to imply that immigration or multiculturalism are somehow a deliberate attack on white people, specifically, BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE IMMIGRANTS OR MULTICULTURALISM, BECAUSE THEY'RE RACISTS?

When somebody declares something like "I support healthy, happy families", but does so while attending a campaign against the legal right to have, say, interracial marriage, do you suppose that person is just making a perfectly uncontroversial and generalised statement about wanting all families to be healthy and happy; or, have you considered the possibility that what they're implying is that interracial families are inherently not healthy or happy, and are just cloaking this message behind ambiguous phrasing and euphemism?

Big questions, I know. Mull it over and get back to me.

 

[stvdv]

Do I really need to tell you why outing a child who is transgender and does not want their hateful parent to know would put the child in danger?

First I'm trying to establish some logical consistency here. In recent months here on RF I have been told many times by supporters of GAC that "of course" a child should NOT be put into GAC without heavy involvement from their parents. Where do you stand on that question?

The real problem is discrimination, belittling, disrespect etc.

Just solve discrimination in US, and there will be no LGBT issues left. As simple as that. Educate the aggressors to behave like a human being (respecting feelings of others) instead of acting out demonic (disrespecting feelings of others)

Focus on LGBT, conveniently ignoring the underlying issues never solves this

 

[wellwisher]

The feeble attempts to drive a wedge between the trans community and the rest of the LGBT is mostly done for hate purposes and is not grounded in the history of our community.

Do I really need to tell you why outing a child who is transgender and does not want their hateful parent to know would put the child in danger?

Do you think parents would disagree; be hateful, if teachers were letting 10 year olds drive a car while drinking, behind their backs? Parents, who create and support their children, have a duty and responsibly to the children, that the Liberal state is trying to disrupt; go from natural to unnatural. Whatever the Liberals touch, goes to crap, so they need to crap in the dark; hide their crap from the parents. Sneaking around behind people backs is what crooks do; stealing childhood with their Liberal adult insecurities.

The entire transgender nonsense is connected to a long time Liberal insecurity; population control. They have, for decades suggested forced sterilization of criminals, insane and sick. This was never allowed by the courts, since the over population bogeyman was only a Liberal paranoia that never went fully mainstream. They stuck to the quest and finally discovered a social way to con the youngest members of culture to self sterilize. Parental consent gets in the way of a 5 year old being fully conned and indoctrinated.

Say Mom is looking forward to being a grandma someday, and she finds out her children are being taught; programed to self sterilize, under the guise of a rebellious crossdress fad that needs drugs and surgery. She will be pissed and not allow her babies to be brainwashed and sterilized without a fight. There is no greater defending force than Mama Bear and the Left knows it. This is why they need to do this in dark alleys, like Liberal thieves in the night. How about we sterilize the teachers who are trying to sterilize the children? Such unnatural adults should not be breeding.

LBG is different in that sterilization is not the underlying issue, since their procreation plumbing remains, and procreation never leaves the table, but remains subject to adult choice.

What I would do is proactively file a class action suit against the medical community to make them responsible for all future liability created by this sterilization con job industry, that has no statutes of limitations. All bonehead Liberal ideas, that sell as good, reach a point where they create worse problems; immigration, soft on crime, inflation, etc. When the crap hits the fan, the greedy doctors can be sued to pay for their greed and their lack of concern; a ticking time bomb.

 

[Laniakea]

Perhaps you could answer the questions posed to you.

Already did.

 

[Laniakea]

Congratulations for providing a perfect example of what I just explained.

Tell me, when people campaigned against de-segregating schools under the slogan "whites have rights too", what do you think they were actually saying? Do you think they were just acknowledging the simple fact that rights extend to white people as well as other races, or do you think they were trying to suggest something else? Like, I dunno, suggesting that the expansion of black rights to be equal to whites was implicitly impinging on the rights of white people, specifically, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT SEGREGATION TO BE TAKEN AWAY, BECAUSE THEY WERE RACISTS?

By a similar note, when people campaign against "multi-culturalism" or against immigration on the basis of "defending white culture", do you genuinely take these people at face-value, or do you understand that what they're doing is no different to the above? Like, I dunno, trying to imply that immigration or multiculturalism are somehow a deliberate attack on white people, specifically, BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE IMMIGRANTS OR MULTICULTURALISM, BECAUSE THEY'RE RACISTS?

When somebody declares something like "I support healthy, happy families", but does so while attending a campaign against the legal right to have, say, interracial marriage, do you suppose that person is just making a perfectly uncontroversial and generalised statement about wanting all families to be healthy and happy; or, have you considered the possibility that what they're implying is that interracial families are inherently not healthy or happy, and are just cloaking this message behind ambiguous phrasing and euphemism?

Big questions, I know. Mull it over and get back to me.

Again, why don't you like "white culture"? Is there something you don't like about white people other than the their culture? Is it their skin color? Please explain.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, why don't you like "white culture"? Is there something you don't like about white people other than the their culture? Is it their skin color? Please explain.

So, you either completely missed the point despite me spelling it out very clearly, didn't read my post, or are being obtuse.

Which is it?

 

[libre]

You are right about one thing, you motive is extremely transparent. Not just on this issue but on any issue related to transgender individuals or the transgender community. You don't want transgender women to use the women's bathrooms or change rooms because you deny that transgender women are women. You don't want transgender youth participating in sports because you don't consider the possibility that they could benefit from that, or you don't care. You don't want transgender individuals to be allowed to use the proper pronouns and you cruelly mock them when they do.

I didn't have the full background, but this is what I was feeling as well.

They disagree with basically everything about trans care, and try to make it seem like an informed position that is consistent with the medical field, but when it comes down to it.

• Endorsed standards say GAC is safe, the ideologues disagree.
• Endorsed standards say it's effective, the ideologues disagree.
• Endorsed standards say gender should be affirmed and that attempts at conversion are harmful, the ideologues disagree.
• Endorsed standards recognizes transgender children exist, the ideologues disagree.
• The endorsed standards on adolescent hormone treatment is completely informed by doctors, the non-doctor ideologues insist they are being influenced by activists and instead cherry-pick doctors that agree with their stances.
• Despite almost all trans patients are satisfied with their care, the ideologues shrug it off as anecdotal.

It's not just that the anti-gender folks have a reasoned disagreement with one aspect of gender affirming care. They have a whole worldview that prevents them from accepting basically any truths about trans healthcare. At that point there isn't really any conversation that can be had, we don't have any common ground. I can side with the standards endorsed by the psychological and pediatric association of my country or I can go side with some terfs, who I am to presume for some reason are coming from a place of concern.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Already did.

Question(s): "Why does it need defending? From what? What even is "white culture?" Is it even a thing?

Your response: "I guess it's not racist then, as the person I responded to was claiming."

Can you explain how you you think your response answers any question posed to you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, why don't you like "white culture"? Is there something you don't like about white people other than the their culture? Is it their skin color? Please explain.

There is no such thing as "white culture."

There are many different cultures that are predominantly white, but there's no "white culture." Irish culture, Finnish culture, and German culture - for instance - are all different cultures.

 

[icehorse]

I didn't have the full background, but this is what I was feeling as well.

They disagree with basically everything about trans care, and try to make it seem like an informed position that is consistent with the medical field, but when it comes down to it.

• Endorsed standards say GAC is safe, the ideologues disagree.
• Endorsed standards say it's effective, the ideologues disagree.
• Endorsed standards say gender should be affirmed and that attempts at conversion are harmful, the ideologues disagree.
• Endorsed standards recognizes transgender children exist, the ideologues disagree.
• The endorsed standards on adolescent hormone treatment is completely informed by doctors, the non-doctor ideologues insist they are being influenced by activists and instead cherry-pick doctors that agree with their stances.
• Despite almost all trans patients are satisfied with their care, the ideologues shrug it off as anecdotal.

It's not just that the anti-gender folks have a reasoned disagreement with one aspect of gender affirming care. They have a whole worldview that prevents them from accepting basically any truths about trans healthcare. At that point there isn't really any conversation that can be had, we don't have any common ground. I can side with the standards endorsed by the psychological and pediatric association of my country or I can go side with some terfs, who I am to presume for some reason are coming from a place of concern.

As a regular opponent of yours in these debates I have a few quick responses:

1 - You'd be more credible if you didn't just make up a HUGE list of strawman arguments.

2 - I'd like you to read the article below, and tell me your thoughts about it. (This is just one of many citations I've given, fwiw.)

‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, why don't you like "white culture"? Is there something you don't like about white people other than the their culture? Is it their skin color? Please explain.

What's white culture?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

2 - I'd like you to read the article below, and tell me your thoughts about it. (This is just one of many citations I've given, fwiw.)

‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’

And I explained obviously this person is lying. Medical transitions were pioneered over a century ago. No, this person didn't help pioneer it.

 

[icehorse]

And I explained obviously this person is lying. Medical transitions were pioneered over a century ago. No, this person didn't help pioneer it.

Why won't you take yes for an answer?? I've already acknowledged - several times - that various forms of transitions predate the Dutch protocol. BUT!!! The Dutch protocol was created in 2011, and that's the basis of GAC, which is what THIS thread is about. Check the OP, THIS thread is about GAC.

 

[Augustus]

What's white culture?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why won't you take yes for an answer?? I've already acknowledged - several times - that various forms of transitions predate the Dutch protocol. BUT!!! The Dutch protocol was created in 2011, and that's the basis of GAC, which is what THIS thread is about. Check the OP, THIS thread is about GAC.

Changing names doesn't change the fact it's been going on for a very long time.

 

[Laniakea]

So, you either completely missed the point despite me spelling it out very clearly, didn't read my post, or are being obtuse.

Which is it?

Every "point" you tried to make ended with a question mark. You didn't spell it out, rather, you just threw my questions back to me as if you didn't actually have an answer, but would rather respond to questions with questions of your own, which do not answer mine.
Let me ask you this then. Do you also not like BLACK culture? Or are they any other cultures you don't like?

 

[Laniakea]

There is no such thing as "white culture."

There are many different cultures that are predominantly white, but there's no "white culture." Irish culture, Finnish culture, and German culture - for instance - are all different cultures.

I actually agree with you. It's a term made up by racists who want to see white people as somehow evil, but don't want to be called racists for doing so. Then they try to make us believe that it's somehow ok to hate white people for who they are, while at the same time claim that anyone who would dare say the same thing about any other people--whether based on culture or skin color--is a racist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Every "point" you tried to make ended with a question mark. You didn't spell it out, rather, you just threw my questions back to me as if you didn't actually have an answer, but would rather respond to questions with questions of your own, which do not answer mine.
Let me ask you this then. Do you also not like BLACK culture? Or are they any other cultures you don't like?

So you really don't understand my point, despite me explaining it twice. Coolio.

If you think the argument I was making was "I don't like white culture" when I have clearly explained my point in detail twice, then perhaps you need to calm your internal monologue and actually try reading for a change.

Perhaps I will give you a hand:

Now, I know it's confusing when people put question marks after things. But there's this thing called "rhetorics", whereby in certain contexts a question is not necessarily intended to be answered by the person being asked, but is meant rhetorically in order to illustrate a certain point. With that now in mind, here is what you apparently missed again (and, remember, there is a POINT BEING MADE not a QUESTION BEING ASKED in these paragraphs):

Tell me, when people campaigned against de-segregating schools under the slogan "whites have rights too", what do you think they were actually saying? Do you think they were just acknowledging the simple fact that rights extend to white people as well as other races, or do you think they were trying to suggest something else? Like, I dunno, suggesting that the expansion of black rights to be equal to whites was implicitly impinging on the rights of white people, specifically, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT SEGREGATION TO BE TAKEN AWAY, BECAUSE THEY WERE RACISTS?

By a similar note, when people campaign against "multi-culturalism" or against immigration on the basis of "defending white culture", do you genuinely take these people at face-value, or do you understand that what they're doing is no different to the above? Like, I dunno, trying to imply that immigration or multiculturalism are somehow a deliberate attack on white people, specifically, BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE IMMIGRANTS OR MULTICULTURALISM, BECAUSE THEY'RE RACISTS?

When somebody declares something like "I support healthy, happy families", but does so while attending a campaign against the legal right to have, say, interracial marriage, do you suppose that person is just making a perfectly uncontroversial and generalised statement about wanting all families to be healthy and happy; or, have you considered the possibility that what they're implying is that interracial families are inherently not healthy or happy, and are just cloaking this message behind ambiguous phrasing and euphemism?

Big questions, I know. Mull it over and get back to me.

I know it's a lot, and if you really need me to dumb it down even more and re-state in one or two pithy sentences, I could probably do that for you. I could perhaps even add some colourful fonts, if you like.

 

[Laniakea]

So you really don't understand my point, despite me explaining it twice. Coolio.

If you think the argument I was making was "I don't like white culture" when I have clearly explained my point in detail twice, then perhaps you need to calm your internal monologue and actually try reading for a change.

Perhaps I will give you a hand:

Now, I know it's confusing when people put question marks after things. But there's this thing called "rhetorics", whereby in certain contexts a question is not necessarily intended to be answered by the person being asked, but is meant rhetorically in order to illustrate a certain point. With that now in mind, here is what you apparently missed again (and, remember, there is a POINT BEING MADE not a QUESTION BEING ASKED in these paragraphs):

Tell me, when people campaigned against de-segregating schools under the slogan "whites have rights too", what do you think they were actually saying? Do you think they were just acknowledging the simple fact that rights extend to white people as well as other races, or do you think they were trying to suggest something else? Like, I dunno, suggesting that the expansion of black rights to be equal to whites was implicitly impinging on the rights of white people, specifically, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT SEGREGATION TO BE TAKEN AWAY, BECAUSE THEY WERE RACISTS?

By a similar note, when people campaign against "multi-culturalism" or against immigration on the basis of "defending white culture", do you genuinely take these people at face-value, or do you understand that what they're doing is no different to the above? Like, I dunno, trying to imply that immigration or multiculturalism are somehow a deliberate attack on white people, specifically, BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE IMMIGRANTS OR MULTICULTURALISM, BECAUSE THEY'RE RACISTS?

When somebody declares something like "I support healthy, happy families", but does so while attending a campaign against the legal right to have, say, interracial marriage, do you suppose that person is just making a perfectly uncontroversial and generalised statement about wanting all families to be healthy and happy; or, have you considered the possibility that what they're implying is that interracial families are inherently not healthy or happy, and are just cloaking this message behind ambiguous phrasing and euphemism?

Big questions, I know. Mull it over and get back to me.

I know it's a lot, and if you really need me to dumb it down even more and re-state in one or two pithy sentences, I could probably do that for you. I could perhaps even add some colourful fonts, if you like.

Again, your questions are not points. If you have a point to make, then let's hear it.
While I wait, I'll give you a question to mull over: When companies such as Coca Cola tell their employees to be "less white", what do you believe they mean by that?