The witchhunt continues...

[Kenny]

Only roughly 1 & 1/2% of teens nationwide have a transgender operation, and the rest are given hormone suppressants if they, their parents, and their doctor agree, and they are commonly used and quite safe. Our oldest daughter is currently on them to suppress her breast cancer and has no noticeable side effects.

So, the question is why should government make such a personal decision? Do they live with the teen? know the teen's issues? act like the teen's doctor?

Also, trans teens that don't have any procedure done have a noticeable higher suicide rate versus those that do.

Yes. And the ones who later regret it are forever marred.

Yes. Sometimes hormones are necessary and I am thankful that your daughter is able to make us of properly used drugs to help suppress her breast cancer.

But there are noticeable side effects on a growing young child.

I don't agree with your position for children. My daughter spanked her child. Are you against government intervention Department of Children? (Different words in different states) Why should government make such a personal decision? Do they live with the teen in their intervention? Their issues or seen their psychologist?

There are times when government should intervene.

Suicide for those who are trans are higher that the average populace. Why? Because there are psychological issues. So.. .yes, we should not let blockers be used for this purpose until they are adults and their bones and growth are not affected. IMHO

 

[Father Heathen]

No rule can change the heart. We can make the law "Thou shalt no commit murder" - and there will still be murder. However, does that mean I should passively keep quiet when murder has been committed? I am not equating murder with any single object that we are talking about but rather just the principle. A life without guidelines, imv, is the basis of anarchism.

I believe that Christianity is a lie, but I also believe that you should have the right to live that lie, as it's your life.

 

[Kenny]

"Not normal" Is meaningless here. Red hair is not normal.

But no, Gender dysphoria treatment has been with sexual assignment surgery since WW2 also. Because researchers realized early on that conversion camps went about as well for trans as it did for gay people: inhumanely with ghastly results.

Also, nobody is going through GAC without evaluation. Thats fear mongering by the right. Same same as when they were saying kids were being pushed to be gay.

I think this is totally absurd and not applicable.

1) Red hair is normal for those who have those genes - apples and oranges (which another poster said the same about your position)

Something done in times past doesn't mean it is right (as with slavery)

People do go to GAC without evaluation as well as puberty blockers:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1649521559051071488

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes. And the ones who later regret it are forever marred.

Yes. Sometimes hormones are necessary and I am thankful that your daughter is able to make us of properly used drugs to help suppress her breast cancer.

But there are noticeable side effects on a growing young child.

I don't agree with your position for children. My daughter spanked her child. Are you against government intervention Department of Children? (Different words in different states) Why should government make such a personal decision? Do they live with the teen in their intervention? Their issues or seen their psychologist?

There are times when government should intervene.

Suicide for those who are trans are higher that the average populace. Why? Because there are psychological issues. So.. .yes, we should not let blockers be used for this purpose until they are adults and their bones and growth are not affected. IMHO

A lot of the suicide has to do with rejection, bullying, etc. which is fanned by the culture war.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think this is totally absurd and not applicable.

1) Red hair is normal for those who have those genes - apples and oranges (which another poster said the same about your position)

Something done in times past doesn't mean it is right (as with slavery)

People do go to GAC without evaluation as well as puberty blockers:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1649521559051071488

Normal is a term literally denoting average. Red hair is not normal because it's not the norm. Not normal does not equal bad.

Or something like conversion camps and other ****ty things Christians do to maintain their status quo.

You literally cannot do GAC without evaluation as evaluation is the first step of GAC, puberty blockers are part of GAC, and not just for trans people.

Project Veritas is a far right rag and not worth one more moment spent typing about it. Find an actual medical institution.

Actually I'm not sure why I took you off block. All you do is post conspiracy websites lol.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No... what I was answering was the "law" portion... or maybe I just misunderstood. Personally I would take the position (because of the long lasting effects, the fact that many are now de-transitioning, none of it has long-term studies), that there should be a law until one is old enough (18 currently) to make a decision about their own bodies. When one is mature enough, as we know that many children readjust their identity over time, one can make a free choice of what they want to do with their bodes whether transgender procedures, homosexuality et al.

Or we keep the state out of it and let the experts who actually study it decide treatment courses?
What you suggest is cruelty and torture.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1) Red hair is normal for those who have those genes - apples and oranges (which another poster said the same about your position)

No, it's a genetic mutation that causes red hair, a mutation linked to a few abnormalities (like needing more anesthesia at the dentist amd being more sensitive to certain pains).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do Extreme Interventions for Trans Youths Save Lives?

This thread is a continuation of a few recent threads on RF. Context: In the last decade, there has been a 2,000% increase in people coming out as transgender. It is widely reported (and not contested in this OP), that trans youth have a high incidence of suffering from various mental health...

www.religiousforums.com

So, you want me to search through an entire thread to figure out where you linked something regarding your claim that, "What's new-ish however is trans women who make no attempt to look like women using these facilities. It's no longer uncommon to see trans women sporting full, thick beards."

Why are you trying to make this so difficult? It's baffling.

 

[Kenny]

A lot of the suicide has to do with rejection, bullying, etc. which is fanned by the culture war.

So true! And not knowing who you are. My dad recounted how he would bully a person and once followed him all the way to his home. At the door step, the guy had a bag of marbles and laid it squarely on my dads head... the last time my dad bullied him. The guy figured out who he was:

watch

 

[Kenny]

No, it's a genetic mutation that causes red hair, a mutation linked to a few abnormalities (like needing more anesthesia at the dentist amd being more sensitive to certain pains).

I disagree. Skin color is not "an abnormality" - unless you are an albino. IMV. It is just how much melanin one has

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I disagree. Skin color is not "an abnormality" - unless you are an albino. IMV. It is just how much melanin one has

Red hair--a desirable mutation? - PubMed

Red hair is one of the most striking variants of human hair coloration and has historically been of profound social importance. Red hair in man is due to certain loss of function mutations of one of the peptide products of the pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) gene, the melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[SkepticThinker]

I 100% agree and have always agreed. That may be the main thing but not the only thing. Truth matters.


My point has never been about how I know if a person is a man or woman. It has always been about truth. That a transman is not a man. I have continually said I call someone by what they prefer.

So your point is that you don't believe people when they say they are transgender? Is that it? What's with the references to "lies" and "truth?"

A transgender person is someone whose gender identity doesn't correspond with the sex registered to them at birth.
A transgender man is a transgender man.
A transgender woman is a transgender woman.

A cisgender person is someone whose gender identity corresponds with the sex registered to them at birth.
A cisgender man is a cisgender man.
A cisgender woman is a cisgender woman.


The "truth" is that some people feel like their gender identity doesn't match the sex they were registered with at birth. Who are you to say that's a lie? Do you think it's a lie when a homosexual person "feels" attraction to someone of the same sex? How would you determine that?

I'm glad that you call people what they prefer to be called.

 

[Kenny]

Normal is a term literally denoting average. Red hair is not normal because it's not the norm. Not normal does not equal bad.

Or something like conversion camps and other ****ty things Christians do to maintain their status quo.

You literally cannot do GAC without evaluation as evaluation is the first step of GAC, puberty blockers are part of GAC, and not just for trans people.

Project Veritas is a far right rag and not worth one more moment spent typing about it. Find an actual medical institution.

Actually I'm not sure why I took you off block. All you do is post conspiracy websites lol.

yes.... just close your eyes and keep saying to yourself "the medical field are all saints, the pharmaceutical field are all saints, abortionists aren't there for the money - they are all saints"

Not to say there aren't any good ones in any field

So, just a little slumber, just a little sleep and watch what happens when they go after your children/grandchildren.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes. And the ones who later regret it are forever marred.

Yes. Sometimes hormones are necessary and I am thankful that your daughter is able to make us of properly used drugs to help suppress her breast cancer.

But there are noticeable side effects on a growing young child.

I don't agree with your position for children. My daughter spanked her child. Are you against government intervention Department of Children? (Different words in different states) Why should government make such a personal decision? Do they live with the teen in their intervention? Their issues or seen their psychologist?

There are times when government should intervene.

Suicide for those who are trans are higher that the average populace. Why? Because there are psychological issues. So.. .yes, we should not let blockers be used for this purpose until they are adults and their bones and growth are not affected. IMHO

I've posted this umpteen times before, and it's clear you haven't watched or read it.

Give these interviews with parents of transgender kids a watch/listen and perhaps it will better inform your inaccurate views on this.

ICYMI: Watch Jon Stewart Debunk Anti-Trans Myths about Gender…

Watch Jon Stewart’s Take Down Here For Free

www.hrc.org

Here's a snippet:

"Parents of Transgender Youth:

“Well, it’s interesting that folks might say that these are woke parents ‘cause my husband and I weren’t really woke about this. We had a child who was telling us that they – that, you know, she’s been a girl her whole life, and we were not really listening. So I am not sure how woke we were….I kind of wish we were more woke. I wish we had been able to hear her sooner. Took us a few years to really listen and appreciate that she was telling us who she was. And when we did, she was – she was like a new child. She just literally lit up, woke up. She woke up when we supported her. We said, ‘we recognize that this is who you are, and we are gonna support you in our house. And we’re gonna support you in your life.’ And when that happened, she’s like, ‘this is amazing.’ She really didn’t have words for it as a 10-year-old. She had been telling us since she was three. And since that time, what we deal with now is a child who is now almost going to college. She’s in high school. And, I told someone the other day, I said, ‘You know, her being trans is the least interesting thing about her.’”

“So the year before she transitioned, I knew – she was verbalizing that she did not want to live. And I said ‘I don’t want to lose my child,’ so we may have had our heads in the sand about what was really going on, acknowledging this. So there was a razor’s edge for sure at that point. Once we actually affirmed this child, she’s actually been fine. She’s on her phone too much. That’s her biggest problem. Once she had the gender-affirming care of her parents – she blossomed.”

– Keisha Michaels, PTEC Parent


It seems to me that people who truly care about children seriously need to spend more time thinking on this, instead of resorting to misinformed knee-jerk reactions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And I already agreed with you on this. Call them all actual children. But the fact is they were not born from the same mother. How is this controversial?

Okay, I am going to go through this ONE MORE TIME.

Here's what you said, in answer to the following question:

What makes the adopted child a member of the second family?

You said:
"Legal and emotional reasons. However, that child is still not their actual child."

You said ACTUAL child.

Not BIOLOGICAL child.

Unless you are equating these terms, which has some pretty obvious negative implications. As I have REPEATEDLY STATED, I have no issue with saying an adopted child is not the same as a biological child. What I have a problem with is saying that an adopted child is not someone's ACTUAL child.

If you now acknowledge that this was wrong, or a misstatement, you just need to say so.

My point was to say the adopted children were not born from the mother of the family.

But your way of saying this was that they were not their ACTUAL child. That was the issue. You equated BIOLOGICAL with ACTUAL, implying that you somehow think adopted children are not ACTUALLY the children of their parents. You don't seem to believe this, but you DID say it. All I've been doing is pointing that out to you.

And the analogy to the transgender discussion. I am not talking about how we should treat people. of course we should treat people with respect. I am talking about what is true.

It is true that ACTUAL and BIOLOGICAL are two different things, and that what constitutes someone's "ACTUAL" child is clearly a matter of interpretation. Do you understand?

I fine with the stuff you said about how you treat trans people, even if you don't necessarily BELIEVE they are the gender they associate with, as long as you treat then how they wish to be treated. That's fine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think this is totally absurd and not applicable.

1) Red hair is normal for those who have those genes - apples and oranges (which another poster said the same about your position)

Something done in times past doesn't mean it is right (as with slavery)

People do go to GAC without evaluation as well as puberty blockers:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1649521559051071488

Project Veritas? Ugh.


You seriously need better news sources than far-right wing propagandists and conspiracy theorists.

 

[Father Heathen]

So, just a little slumber, just a little sleep and watch what happens when they go after your children/grandchildren.

This sort of bogeyman fear mongering is such a shameful and manipulate tactic; i.e. go after other people's rights and liberties by creating a false narrative to stir up a moral panic and create the illusion that your efforts are defensive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

yes.... just close your eyes and keep saying to yourself "the medical field are all saints, the pharmaceutical field are all saints, abortionists aren't there for the money - they are all saints"

Not to say there aren't any good ones in any field

So, just a little slumber, just a little sleep and watch what happens when they go after your children/grandchildren.

Nobody is saying they are saints. Just more educated and knowledgeable about this stuff than some random dude on the internet reading far-right-wing propaganda.

 

[icehorse]

So, you want me to search through an entire thread to figure out where you linked something regarding your claim that, "What's new-ish however is trans women who make no attempt to look like women using these facilities. It's no longer uncommon to see trans women sporting full, thick beards."

Why are you trying to make this so difficult? It's baffling.

From my perspective the trans activists have managed to flip the whole conversation on its ear. They have managed to get most people to believe that their extraordinary claims are "correct" and "accepted" and "well proven".

Zooming way out, and trying to look at this issue with as much logic and equanimity as I can muster, I've come to conclude that - in reality - many of the trans activist's claims are in fact EXTRAORDINARY.

All of the apologists I'm debating on this thread seem to have forgotten that THEY are defending EXTRAORDINARY claims. The apologists assume an air of "rightness" (perhaps righteousness?), and act as though as a critic, I'm the one who has to do all the proving.

It's all bass-ackwards.

In general wouldn't it seem that if an apologist is defending extraordinary claims, they ought to be the ones who are keeping current on the issue?

As an apologist, it's your job to know that many trans women have recently decided that they don't want to make any attempt to look like women. That's an aspect of apologizing for extraordinary claims and behaviors, right?

So do not forget: You have chosen to assume the role of an apologist for extraordinary claims. The general rule is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's on the apologist, not on the critic.

And BTW, as a courtesy, a few posts ago I listed some of the extraordinary claims you are apologizing for.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Nobody is saying they are saints. Just more educated and knowledgeable about this stuff than some random dude on the internet reading far-right-wing propaganda.

Yep. As I said earlier:

This is also very akin to climate deniers who only ask this question in bad faith. As if any doubt (which science is built on) automatically makes an open window for their particular rhetoric. Where the vast majority of scientists which are in agreement with climate change are either brainwashed or part of some nefarious agenda