Tennessee sees new step in wave of anti-Trans bills

[SkepticThinker]

I'd rather you think about the flaws in your own arguments.

Thanks.

Oh, is that why you ignore the flaws pointed out in your arguments and then try to deflect and change the subject?
You're stuck in the wrong century, bud.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No - that is what is being taught - I believe that it is a reference to masculine and feminine traits and attributes.

You just agreed with me about the definition.
Nice try. I guess you realized the implications of that, hence your backpedaling.

For example - the desire that most men have to protect and provide for their families is a gender trait that predates society.

What a strange example. Most women also have the desire to protect and provide for their families. I.e. That's not a "gender trait." It's a human trait.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

He's made it clear he's not.

Wait - did you just assume my gender and pronouns?

BTW, misgendering people is for rude arselings.

You have yet to tell me what you consider your gender to be and what pronouns you would like me to use.

Isn't it your responsibility to inform me of these things before claiming that I am being a "rude arseling"?

I think it's rude that you claim that I am being rude - and for using the term "arseling" - you grew up in Indiana and you live in California.

That's cultural appropriation!

BTW - I'm not going to use whatever pronoun you want me to use to address you - because of your attitude.

I have been - and will continue to - refer to @Saint Frankenstein as a he because he is being reasonable and honest.

As are the wild assumptions you gave earlier.

What "wild assumptions" are you referring to?

I'd be very surprised if you answered that question - because you tend to run away from my questions.

But here's to hoping!

Dunning Kruger on overdrive and poor, uncivilized manners. Surely you can do better?

First off - I don't know who that is.

Second - I see no reason to meet uncivilized manners with civil ones.

You have been nasty to me since the start - and all I did was share facts.

I understand that it is a part of the transgender ideology to demand that everyone else change to accommodate you - but maybe if you decided to "do better" - I would then feel the desire to do better too.

It's that whole "living by example" and "be the change you want to see in the world" concept that I know must sound alien to you.

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First off - the word "present" was used by Shadow Wolf in Post #454,

"Because he isn't he, she is known as she, presenting as she, and on hormones can't sexually perform as a he."

He made the claim that a man who is "presenting" as a woman and is unable to "sexually perform" because he is undergoing hormone replacement therapy should be considered a woman - therefore - he should be able to use the women's public restroom.

It makes no sense to me, and I don't believe impotence makes a man any less a biological male.

That was why I used the word "present" in quotations when I responded to that post - because I was referencing his use of the word.

And to answer your question - No - I am not okay with men using the women's public restroom and vice versa because public restroom use is segregated by our biology - not how we "present" or what hormones we are injecting or whether or not we can perform sexually.

Biological sex and gender are not the same thing. it is impossible for any of us to change our biological sex.

People have been arguing that making it illegal for men to use the women's public restroom makes no sense because it is "unenforceable".

They claim that we would need "bouncers" checking everyone's genitalia or DNA at the door to the restrooms in order to enforce such a law.

I believe that that is ridiculous and displays an ignorance of how law enforcement works.

Law tends to only be enforced when someone presses charges - either an individual or governing body.

For example - a speeding ticket can be issued by a law enforcement officer - because they represent the governing body.

However - every single speeding ticket can be contested in a court of law - where the testimony of the officer can be scrutinized.

We don't have "speed guns" set up everywhere - so does this mean that going over the speed limit is "unenforceable"?

The same applies to what happens in our public restrooms.

Assault and battery are illegal - and a man using a women's restroom is also illegal in most States.

Just because there are no witnesses to the crime - or "bouncers" or DNA checks or whatever - that doesn't mean a crime was not committed and that it is not enforceable.

If a woman in the majority of States sees a man enter the restroom with her - she has the right to tell him to leave - if he doesn't - she can contact authorities and press charges on him.

And various other charges can be applied depending on what the man does or doesn't do.

We don't need "bouncers" or DNA checks at the doors to our public restrooms.

It is all enforceable - it just depends on what the people involved decide to do.

I don't know how you think this solves the problem. You clearly haven't thought this through all the way.

So let's say someone calls the cops because they think someone is in a washroom that doesn't conform to their biological sex. The cop shows up. Now what? How do we determine that the person is in the "wrong" bathroom? How do we determine the person's biological sex?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Because you didn't explain yourself.

Did you open the links and read the material though?

Oh, so that's not your argument?

Nope.

What's your argument then?

That pedophilia will inevitably be made legal in the U.S. - most likely in our lifetime.

What's with the links then?

Evidence of people's attempts to normalize and legalize pedophilia.

So you want to play semantic games, or have a discussion?

If you had read Shadow Wolf's post - you would understand that I was not "[playing] semantic games" - but actually addressing what he said about predictions.

Okay, so you're claiming that you didn't claim causation. Why link the two together then? How are they related?

I never claimed that they were linked together or otherwise related.

You see - you are the second person to butt into the conversation I was having with Jose Fly - and you commented on Shadow Wolf's butting in - so you are twice removed from the original discussion at this point.

Jose Fly claimed that what I had said constituted "hate speech" then Shadow Wolf butted in - agreeing with him - and it was him - Shadow Wolf - not I - who brought up both same-sex marriage and pedophilia.

It was Shadow Wolf - not I - who "linked" the two together by mentioning past predictions made by those who opposed same-sex marriage.

I never said that one caused the other or that they were linked or related.

After Shadow Wolf said his piece about how the predictions made by others that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to pedophilia being legalized - I said that the same arguments that people made against same-sex marriage are currently being used against legalizing pedophilia.

That argument has already failed before, and I believe that it will fail again.

What you need to do before butting into a conversation is read some of it before commenting.

I'm supposed to pour through your links to figure out what argument you're trying to make? No thanks.

Aw - so you didn't open them - great.

And you already know my argument - that pedophilia will one day be legalized.

I don't like that - but I believe that it is going to happen.

How about you just state what your argument is and do away with this cryptic stuff?

Sharing a link is hardly "cryptic". Sigh.

Minors cannot give consent - however - they have been legally marrying adults in the U.S. for years.

People have been pushing for pedophilia to be considered a "sexual orientation."

Politicians have been pushing that "sexual orientation" should be a Federally protected class.

If pedophilia is legally defined as a "sexual orientation" and all "sexual orientations" become Federally protected classes - then pedophilia would be considered a protected class.

We couldn't arrest an adult for raping a minor - all sex acts with minors are rape because they cannot give consent - because the pedophile would be protected.

If someone spoke out against the pedophile - they could be sued for discrimination.

And it is my argument that it is going to happen eventually. It is inevitable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did you open the links and read the material though?

Nope.

Without knowing what I’m supposed to be looking for or what your argument is or why you posted them? Nope.

That pedophilia will inevitably be made legal in the U.S. - most likely in our lifetime.

Disagree.

Evidence of people's attempts to normalize and legalize pedophilia.

Relevance to the discussion about transgendered people or gay marriage?

If you had read Shadow Wolf's post - you would understand that I was not "[playing] semantic games" - but actually addressing what he said about predictions.

I never claimed that they were linked together or otherwise related.

Weird how you didn’t flat out say that to Shadow Wolf then. One would think if you were dead set against making the connection between the two, you would have made a big point to say so.

Instead, you went along with it and posted your links about people wanting to legalize pedophilia or whatever.

You see - you are the second person to butt into the conversation I was having with Jose Fly - and you commented on Shadow Wolf's butting in - so you are twice removed from the original discussion at this point.

Jose Fly claimed that what I had said constituted "hate speech" then Shadow Wolf butted in - agreeing with him - and it was him - Shadow Wolf - not I - who brought up both same-sex marriage and pedophilia.

You’re on a public internet forum, bud, people are going to chime in.

It was Shadow Wolf - not I - who "linked" the two together by mentioning past predictions made by those who opposed same-sex marriage.

I never said that one caused the other or that they were linked or related.

You should have un-linked them then. But you didn’t.

After Shadow Wolf said his piece about how the predictions made by others that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to pedophilia being legalized - I said that the same arguments that people made against same-sex marriage are currently being used against legalizing pedophilia.

So you did link the two.

That argument has already failed before, and I believe that it will fail again.

The argument that “the same arguments that people made against same-sex marriage are currently being used against legalizing pedophilia?
Which ones? Please list and/or articulate them.

What you need to do before butting into a conversation is read some of it before commenting.

You just admitted to linking the two things.

Aw - so you didn't open them - great.

I have no idea why you think I’d blindly read through 5 different links trying to figure out what your argument is. Just state what it is so I don’t have to waste my time.

And you already know my argument - that pedophilia will one day be legalized.

I don't like that - but I believe that it is going to happen.

And you think this, why?

Sharing a link is hardly "cryptic". Sigh.

It is when you fail to first articulate your position and explain how the links support it.

Minors cannot give consent - however - they have been legally marrying adults in the U.S. for years.

Yep, and I find that disgusting. That’s an old tradition going back a very long time – a time when girls and women were considered property, which they still are in some parts of the world. A position which has only in the last few decades begun to change, but not in the direction you seem to think.

People have been pushing for pedophilia to be considered a "sexual orientation."

Politicians have been pushing that "sexual orientation" should be a Federally protected class.

If pedophilia is legally defined as a "sexual orientation" and all "sexual orientations" become Federally protected classes - then pedophilia would be considered a protected class.

Which politicians? Where?

We couldn't arrest an adult for raping a minor - all sex acts with minors are rape because they cannot give consent - because the pedophile would be protected.

Huh? We arrest adults for raping adults. We can certainly arrest them for raping children, regardless of whether or not your fears come true, which I don’t think they will.

If someone spoke out against the pedophile - they could be sued for discrimination.

And it is my argument that it is going to happen eventually. It is inevitable.

I think your argument is absurd. And I fail to see how it’s the same argument used when it comes to gay marriage.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't know how you think this solves the problem. You clearly haven't thought this through all the way.

What do you think "the problem" is?

So let's say someone calls the cops because they think someone is in a washroom that doesn't conform to their biological sex. The cop shows up. Now what? How do we determine that the person is in the "wrong" bathroom? How do we determine the person's biological sex?

This isn't "the problem"?

A transgender person who presents as the opposite sex going in and using the restroom of their choice is not "the problem".

The problem is changing the law or making accommodations based on completely subjective criteria.

Today - a man who presents as such entering a women's restroom would cause a stir - the women would feel the need to put up their guard and defend themselves - and possibly get authorities involved depending on what the man does.

If they make accommodations - however - a man who presents as such entering the women's restroom would not cause a stir - the women would be conditioned to do their best to ignore the intrusion and not put their guard up - making them vulnerable for attack.

You see - the thing about laws - they are not just means of punishing those who break them - but that they are also a deterrent to inappropriate and harmful behavior.

Take what is happening in California - once they decriminalized theft up to $1,000 - they have had looting on a massive scale.

People just smashing and grabbing whatever they wanted - as long as they didn't exceed the $1,000 limit - they were in the clear.

The only thing that was preventing this behavior - from these people becoming thieves - was the law.

I am reminded of the performance artist Marina Abramovic - who stood still in a room for six hours beside a table with 72 objects.

She allowed anyone to do anything with those objects to her - without consequences - as an experiment.

By the end of the six hours - she was naked, bleeding and had been molested sexually.

She believed that the only reason she hadn't been completely raped was because the men had come there with their wives.

When you remove the law - which is a barrier that incentivizes appropriate behavior because of the implementation of consequences - people will feel free to do whatever they want.

If all we require is for a man to claim that he is "atypical" in regard to his gender identity, expression of behavior - then he is free and clear to use the women's restroom - that's a bad policy.

And the women would be conditioned not to take issue with that - and let down their guard - even if a man who presents himself as such enters the restroom with them - making them vulnerable.

There have already been cases of men abusing these kinds of laws.

"The problem" is not anyone using the restroom for its intended purpose - but bad people taking advantage of a bad policy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What do you think "the problem" is?

This isn't "the problem"?

A transgender person who presents as the opposite sex going in and using the restroom of their choice is not "the problem".

The problem is changing the law or making accommodations based on completely subjective criteria.

Today - a man who presents as such entering a women's restroom would cause a stir - the women would feel the need to put up their guard and defend themselves - and possibly get authorities involved depending on what the man does.

If they make accommodations - however - a man who presents as such entering the women's restroom would not cause a stir - the women would be conditioned to do their best to ignore the intrusion and not put their guard up - making them vulnerable for attack.

You see - the thing about laws - they are not just means of punishing those who break them - but that they are also a deterrent to inappropriate and harmful behavior.

Take what is happening in California - once they decriminalized theft up to $1,000 - they have had looting on a massive scale.

People just smashing and grabbing whatever they wanted - as long as they didn't exceed the $1,000 limit - they were in the clear.

The only thing that was preventing this behavior - from these people becoming thieves - was the law.

I am reminded of the performance artist Marina Abramovic - who stood still in a room for six hours beside a table with 72 objects.

She allowed anyone to do anything with those objects to her - without consequences - as an experiment.

By the end of the six hours - she was naked, bleeding and had been molested sexually.

She believed that the only reason she hadn't been completely raped was because the men had come there with their wives.

When you remove the law - which is a barrier that incentivizes appropriate behavior because of the implementation of consequences - people will feel free to do whatever they want.

If all we require is for a man to claim that he is "atypical" in regard to his gender identity, expression of behavior - then he is free and clear to use the women's restroom - that's a bad policy.

And the women would be conditioned not to take issue with that - and let down their guard - even if a man who presents himself as such enters the restroom with them - making them vulnerable.

There have already been cases of men abusing these kinds of laws.

"The problem" is not anyone using the restroom for its intended purpose - but bad people taking advantage of a bad policy.

No, no. I'm talking about the fact that two posters have asked you how you intend to enforce these bathroom laws that you support.
When we asked you how you intend to enforce this, and wondered if you intended on having bathroom monitors checking peoples' genitals, you ridiculed us for suggesting as much.
Your answer to this was "obviously" that people going to the bathroom who felt that a person of the "wrong sex" was using the bathroom could just call the authorities to come and handle it and arrest the person, or whatever. Problem solved!
But the problem isn't solved, as per my above explanation that you are responding to, but still haven't addressed. How do we figure out if the person is in the "right" bathroom or "wrong" bathroom?

 

[metis]

You can't make jokes in 2021 - and since it wasn't funny - I don't see how it could be considered a joke.

Maybe you lack a sense of humor?

And - btw - most jokes are based on stereotypes.

Not at all likely, but what often makes them generally funny to one with a sense of humor is that stereotypes used as hyperbole are based on overstatements.

IOW, I know what I was saying and why, and you don't. But, again, that didn't stop you from stereotyping me. Frankly, I wasn't offended but just consider it to be a part of your m.o.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What "wild assumptions" are you referring to?

Like using my long hair as an excuse to use the women's restroom.

You have been nasty to me since the start - and all I did was share facts.

You accuse me of starting a scene, you keep stating fallacies about what I said, you accused me of being a loud mouth and being shouting over religion and making scenes in the bathroom, you deliberately and repeatedly misgendered me, even through out an absolutely stupid accusation of cultural appropriation and I've been nasty to you?

It's that whole "living by example" and "be the change you want to see in the world" concept that I know must sound alien to you.

So, more desperately trying to save face just like after I pointed out genders norms and behaviors aren't deeply rooted in biology. Everything you've attempted to discuss seems alien to you.

Did you use mathematical theorems to "prove" that fact?

Just keep making it more dumb.

Then explain the Post where you agreed with Jose Fly #426.

Again, there is no post where I agreed with him.

All you are talking about are cultural and societal norms and behaviors - not biological ones.

There are no biological behaviors that are inherently male or female.

I don't think so. You keep talking about how you should be allowed to use the women's public restroom and how you are "gender nonconforming" for not being into "guy things".

I am allowed to use the women's restroom, and I never claimed to be gender nonconforming.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Maybe you lack a sense of humor?

Not at all likely, but what often makes them generally funny to one with a sense of humor is that stereotypes used as hyperbole are based on overstatements.

IOW, I know what I was saying and why, and you don't. But, again, that didn't stop you from stereotyping me. Frankly, I wasn't offended but just consider it to be a part of your m.o.

I got you pegged, and you're upset about it.

That's all that has happened here.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

So if that's what you claim your argument is, what are these "same arguments people use today to claim that pedophilia will never be legalized are the same arguments that people used about same-sex marriage - which was legalized?"

It was Shadow Wolf - not me - that claimed that there are "fundamental reasons" for why pedophilia would never be legalized.

I claimed that people said the same thing about same-sex marriage.

Anything and everything people said to fight against the legalization of same-sex marriage has been used to fight against the legalization of pedophilia.

All save the argument of consent - how minors cannot give it - but then again adults have been marrying minors for years - so maybe that's going the way of the dinosaur too?

And a second question, how can you claim you aren't linking the two things, when you literally linked the two things (i.e. the arguments in favour of the things) in this post?

What?

 

[Wildswanderer]

"Common sense" is the excuse offered by
those without reason and patience.
Your beliefs are your own and have no business dictating the public sphere.

I never said anything about the public sphere, but common sense says men are born male and women are born female for a reason and messing with nature is dumb.

 

[Wildswanderer]

According to you.
How many people do you think are attacked by people dressed as the opposite gender to sneak into a bathroom, versus how many transgendered people are attacked for using the bathroom that matches their gender? I mean, listening to you, you'd think people are getting raped all over the place by people dressed as the opposite gender.

I'm sure it happens.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

And to answer your question - No - I am not okay with men using the women's public restroom and vice versa because public restroom use is segregated by our biology - not how we "present" or what hormones we are injecting or whether or not we can perform sexually.

You could still be okay with transgender folks using either bathroom, then. Why not? Can you always tell the difference? Once again, (and I know you are going to LOVE this!) how would you know? Physical appearance alone? It's not as if folks walk around bathrooms showcasing genetalia or have their genetic information branded on them.

Biological sex and gender are not the same thing. it is impossible for any of us to change our biological sex.

...it's not impossible. Male and female structures are pretty analogous, developing differently according to hormones. Biology is pretty malleable with the right knowledge and technology.

People have been arguing that making it illegal for men to use the women's public restroom makes no sense because it is "unenforceable".

They claim that we would need "bouncers" checking everyone's genitalia or DNA at the door to the restrooms in order to enforce such a law.

I believe that that is ridiculous and displays an ignorance of how law enforcement works.

Law tends to only be enforced when someone presses charges - either an individual or governing body.

For example - a speeding ticket can be issued by a law enforcement officer - because they represent the governing body.

However - every single speeding ticket can be contested in a court of law - where the testimony of the officer can be scrutinized.

We don't have "speed guns" set up everywhere - so does this mean that going over the speed limit is "unenforceable"?

The same applies to what happens in our public restrooms.

Assault and battery are illegal - and a man using a women's restroom is also illegal in most States.

Just because there are no witnesses to the crime - or "bouncers" or DNA checks or whatever - that doesn't mean a crime was not committed and that it is not enforceable.

If a woman in the majority of States sees a man enter the restroom with her - she has the right to tell him to leave - if he doesn't - she can contact authorities and press charges on him.

And various other charges can be applied depending on what the man does or doesn't do.

We don't need "bouncers" or DNA checks at the doors to our public restrooms.

It is all enforceable - it just depends on what the people involved decide to do.

So my friend who had top surgery, a beard, and looks more manly than me shouldn't be using the men's room because he doesn't have the right biological apparatus (according to you) downstairs or genetic codes (according to you), but will also face possible expulsion and legal issues if he uses the women's bathroom because he looks like (and is) a man. Doesn't make sense.

Because at some point even in your scenario, someone's gonna be checking genetalia (before or after) and that seems completely ridiculous in order to use a bathroom.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I never said anything about the public sphere, but common sense says men are born male and women are born female for a reason and messing with nature is dumb.

I like my contact lenses. I like being able to get surgery to fix torn ligaments. I like antibiotics too. So many ways we "mess with nature" but no one complains. Like these cybernetic implants helping the blind to see or reducing the frequency and severity of motor ticks in Tourette's syndrome.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I never said anything about the public sphere, but common sense says men are born male and women are born female for a reason and messing with nature is dumb.

I don't know about you, but I was born naked. I've been wearing clothes for a while now, and with a Maine winter well underway ain't stopping anytime soon.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I like my contact lenses. I like being able to get surgery to fix torn ligaments. I like antibiotics too. So many ways we "mess with nature" but no one complains. Like these cybernetic implants helping the blind to see or reducing the frequency and severity of motor ticks in Tourette's syndrome.

Comparing those things to the gender you are born with is silly. There's nothing unhealthy about being born male.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Without knowing what I’m supposed to be looking for or what your argument is or why you posted them? Nope.

You didn't open to see how big they were? They weren't very big.

The information in the links was what you were "supposed to be looking for".

You already knew that my argument was that pedophilia was going to be legalized someday.

I posted them because you wanted information.

Disagree.

I really don't care - but I'd like to ask you a question - do you think people are more or less sympathetic to pedophiles today compared to ten years ago?

Relevance to the discussion about transgendered people or gay marriage?

None at all - which is why I don't understand why Shadow Wolf brought it up.

Weird how you didn’t flat out say that to Shadow Wolf then. One would think if you were dead set against making the connection between the two, you would have made a big point to say so.

What are you talking about?

I never claimed to be "dead set" against anything - I only wanted to clear up your confusion.

All I did was share my opinion that pedophilia will one day be legalized in the U.S. - most likely in our lifetime.

I have seen no data to suggest that the legalizing of same-sex marriage will affect that outcome.

I have seen no data to suggest that the legalizing of same-sex marriage will not affect that outcome.

Therefore - I cannot make the claim that there is no connection between the two - I have no way of knowing.

What I do know is that I never claimed that there was any link or any relation between the two.

Instead, you went along with it and posted your links about people wanting to legalize pedophilia or whatever.

How did I "go along" with anything?

I never agreed that there was a connection.

You’re on a public internet forum, bud, people are going to chime in.

I don't mind you chiming in - but I do mind you coming in halfway and halfcocked.

You demand the same explanations that I have already given ten times over and you make the same baseless assumptions about me and my argument that other people have made because you haven't read the discussion at all.

It's annoying and irresponsible of you.

You should have un-linked them then. But you didn’t.

I have not seen any data that supports a claim to either link or un-link them.

I honestly don't care - same-sex marriage is legal now - so what would be the point?

So you did link the two.

No - I linked people and arguments.

The same people that argued against the legalization of same-sex marriage will use the same arguments against the legalization of pedophilia.

The argument that “the same arguments that people made against same-sex marriage are currently being used against legalizing pedophilia?
Which ones? Please list and/or articulate them.

Sure - but to be clear - these are not my arguments - just common ones that those who opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage used -

1.) It is not natural - Those that used this argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage are using the same argument against the legalization of pedophilia.

2.) Sex/Marriage is for procreation - Those that used this argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage are using the same argument against the legalization of pedophilia.

3.) It is immoral/against my religion - Those that used this argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage are using the same argument against the legalization of pedophilia.

4.) They're trying to redefine what love is - Those that used this argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage are using the same argument against the legalization of pedophilia.

5.) It will harm children - Those that used this argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage are using the same argument against the legalization of pedophilia.

6.) It will lead to the discrimination of religion people - Those that used this argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage are using the same argument against the legalization of pedophilia.

7.) It will lead to worse perversions (slippery slope) - Those that used this argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage are using the same argument against the legalization of pedophilia.

The same people who opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage are using these or other similar arguments to oppose pedophilia when people try to legalize it.

And I have to admit that I agree with all of them when it comes to pedophilia.

You just admitted to linking the two things.

Nope - I "linked" people and their arguments.

What do you mean by "link" anyway? That there is a causation?

Or do you simply mean that I talked about both things in the same discussion?

I have no idea why you think I’d blindly read through 5 different links trying to figure out what your argument is.

You already knew what my claim was, and you aren't blind when reading...

Just state what it is so I don’t have to waste my time.

You do understand that since we both know that nothing I claim is going to sway you - that me typing out my arguments is a waste of my time - don't you?

I'd rather just cut out the middleman and give you the sources that you would demand to see after reading my argument anyways.

Not that you'd believe me even if my sources were ironclad.

I mean - you don't even agree with biological facts.

And you think this, why?

The growing sympathy for pedophiles and the sexualization of children.

Did you watch "Cuties" on Netflix?

The societal push to make pedophilia a "sexual orientation" and the political push to make "sexual orientation" a Federal protected class.

It is when you fail to first articulate your position and explain how the links support it.

You already knew my position and why is your time more valuable than mine?

I owe you nothing.

Yep, and I find that disgusting. That’s an old tradition going back a very long time – a time when girls and women were considered property, which they still are in some parts of the world. A position which has only in the last few decades begun to change, but not in the direction you seem to think.

Women were never considered property in the U.S., and I am talking about way more recent than that.

Over 200,000 minors were married to adults between 2000-2015 in the U.S. - New Jersey Governor Chris Christie came under fire for refusing to sign legislation that would have barred minors from marrying adults.

Which politicians? Where?

The DSM-5 categorized pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" - but after a huge backlash for doing so the APA has decided to change it.

Sexual orientation is already considered a protected class in many States, and I agree that no one should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation - but if they legally recognize pedophilia as a sexual orientation - I would fight against it - because that would extend protections to rapists.

Huh? We arrest adults for raping adults. We can certainly arrest them for raping children, regardless of whether or not your fears come true, which I don’t think they will.

We don't always arrest the adults that rape children - we have been marrying them as well.

You see - even if a minor wants to have sex with an adult - it is still rape - because minors are impressionable and cannot legally give consent to sex acts.

I think your argument is absurd. And I fail to see how it’s the same argument used when it comes to gay marriage.

Thank you for sharing your opinion - but I believe the proof is in the pudding.

I hope I don't need any arguments to prove that pedophilia is wrong - do I?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Comparing those things to the gender you are born with is silly. There's nothing unhealthy about being born male.

The issue is the body has the body one gender while having a brain that more resembles the other gender. That does cause unhealthy issues.