Eugenics Alive and well.....

[StLucieBengal]

(07-26-2017, 03:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pretending to be a shark or a dinosaur and exhibiting gender non-conforming behavior are two different things. It is comparing apples and oranges. If you read the material on this you will see that there is discussion about long-term observation and serious consideration before taking the discussion further. Trying to compare these things is hyperbolic.

98% of all gender delusion cases are fixed by puberty. So why not just wait until puberty to figure out who the 2% is ..... what's the rush for having a sex talk with a pre-K?

[GMDino]

(07-26-2017, 03:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 98% of all gender delusion cases are fixed by puberty.  So why not just wait until puberty to figure out who the 2% is ..... what's the rush for having a sex talk with a pre-K?

I don't know that there is a "rush" but rather a preparedness to speak to a child that has questions.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-26-2017, 03:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know that there is a "rush" but rather a preparedness to speak to a child that has questions.

You treat that question the same way you treat the am I a dog question.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2017, 03:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 98% of all gender delusion cases are fixed by puberty. So why not just wait until puberty to figure out who the 2% is ..... what's the rush for having a sex talk with a pre-K?

Where is the empirical data from peer reviewed research to support this claim?

[GMDino]

(07-26-2017, 03:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You treat that question the same way you treat the am I a dog question.

Seems like a good way to raise healthy children...blow off their questions as pure fantasy.

[Dill]

(07-26-2017, 03:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am speaking about how we have propped up girls to the point that we forgot about boys and now we have an epidemic of weak men growing up.

Women do need men and men need women.   It's a system that works together.    There are just some things that can only be done by men or women.... and we are talking real men and women.  Not these others.

Eugenicists are very progressive and leftist.   Look throughout history.

I do "look throughout history."  I am not aware of any "leftist" eugenicists, though there have been plenty of right wing ones.  The Eugenics movement in the US was funded by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Harriman--the very embodiment of right wing capitalism grounded in social Darwinism. Yesterday's 1%. Can you perhaps name a leftist eugenicist, if there are so many?

It might have once included middle class and "centrist" supporters, but since Hitler's movement, it has clearly been a right wing phenomenon.   That is why I am raising this question about your article--who is Judge Sam Benningfield?  What do you know about him?

I didn't realize we had an epic of weak men growing up. What is the evidence for this? How do we recognize "strong" men when we see them?  Are y ou saying that somewhere there are kindergartens where boys are taught to be weak?

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2017, 04:01 PM)Dill Wrote: I do "look throughout history."  I am not aware of any "leftist" eugenicists, though there have been plenty of right wing ones.  The Eugenics movement in the US was funded by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Harriman--the very embodiment of right wing capitalism grounded in social Darwinism. Yesterday's 1%. Can you perhaps name a leftist eugenicist, if there are so many?

W.E.B. DuBois. Margaret Sanger.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-26-2017, 03:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Where is the empirical data from peer reviewed research to support this claim?

I and others have posted this on this board multiple times. Feel free to search it out if you are serious about reading the data.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-26-2017, 04:01 PM)Dill Wrote: I do "look throughout history."  I am not aware of any "leftist" eugenicists, though there have been plenty of right wing ones.  The Eugenics movement in the US was funded by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Harriman--the very embodiment of right wing capitalism grounded in social Darwinism. Yesterday's 1%. Can you perhaps name a leftist eugenicist, if there are so many?

It might have once included middle class and "centrist" supporters, but since Hitler's movement, it has clearly been a right wing phenomenon.   That is why I am raising this question about your article--who is Judge Sam Benningfield?  What do you know about him?

I didn't realize we had an epic of weak men growing up. What is the evidence for this? How do we recognize "strong" men when we see them?  Are y ou saying that somewhere there are kindergartens where boys are taught to be weak?

Hitler was the leader of a socialist party. He isn't conservative.

[BmorePat87]

(07-26-2017, 03:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Where is the empirical data from peer reviewed research to support this claim?

The numbers come from a range from the DSM-V that the anti-LBGT American College of Pediatricians (the group formed because they were against gays adopting) tries to distort. 

The DSM-V, in reference to children who experience gender dysphoria (which is just the distress not the identity), states that anywhere from 2-30% of males and 2-50% of females who experience gender dysphoria before puberty will experience it after as well. 

So this group wants us to ignore what gender dysphoria is (instead saying "gender confused" in their press release) and focus on just the low end. It also ignores the rather loose criteria of what gender dysphoria is in children versus teens and adults. If your kid doesn't want to play with trucks, likes pink shirts, and plays with girls, he could be classified as having gender dysphoria under DSM-V. 

Source: Google the DSM-V. It's pages 450-455. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2017, 04:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I and others have posted this on this board multiple times. Feel free to search it out if you are serious about reading the data.

No you haven't. The reason I say you haven't is because it doesn't exist.

(07-26-2017, 04:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The numbers come from a range from the DSM-V that the anti-LBGT American College of Pediatricians (the group formed because they were against gays adopting) tries to distort. 

The DSM-V, in reference to children who experience gender dysphoria (which is just the distress not the identity), states that anywhere from 2-30% of males and 2-50% of females who experience gender dysphoria before puberty will experience it after as well. 

So this group wants us to ignore what gender dysphoria is (instead saying "gender confused" in their press release) and focus on just the low end. It also ignores the rather loose criteria of what gender dysphoria is in children versus teens and adults. If your kid doesn't want to play with trucks, likes pink shirts, and plays with girls, he could be classified as having gender dysphoria under DSM-V. 

Source: Google the DSM-V. It's pages 450-455. 

Yeah, I've seen that. Always good to know that claiming scientists have an agenda is a favorite pasttime for those that believe scientists that actually do have an agenda and distort information to suite their needs.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2017, 04:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hitler was the leader of a socialist party. He isn't conservative.

In name only. He spewed a populist message to gain power but then kowtowed to big business in many of his policies.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-26-2017, 05:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No you haven't. The reason I say you haven't is because it doesn't exist.


Yeah, I've seen that. Always good to know that claiming scientists have an agenda is a favorite pasttime for those that believe scientists that actually do have an agenda and distort information to suite their needs.

I have posted this information several times. It exists. I just don't want to be bothered signing it up ATM.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2017, 06:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have posted this information several times. It exists. I just don't want to be bothered signing it up ATM.

I've never seen you post a peer reviewed study of any sort, let alone one that makes this claim.

[Dill]

(07-26-2017, 04:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: W.E.B. DuBois. Margaret Sanger.

These two were no friends of scientific racism; both spent their lives working to empower individuals.

I think Lucie is railing against the more coercive eugencists, who wanted to the state to control reproduction. It would be wrong to identify wither DuBois or Sanger with this, wouldn't it?
 

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2017, 08:07 PM)Dill Wrote: These two were no friends of scientific racism; both spent their lives working to empower individuals.

I think Lucie is railing against the more coercive eugencists, who wanted to the state to control reproduction. It would be wrong to identify wither DuBois or Sanger with this, wouldn't it?
 

I would agree. While both were in favor of eugenics and proponents of it, they weren't as exploitive of its potential as some others.

[Dill]

(07-26-2017, 04:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hitler was the leader of a socialist party.  He isn't conservative.

Lucie, the Nazis were not "socialists." Their first and primary enemies were socialists. I.e. "leftists," meaning real leftists and not just social liberals, though they hated liberals too. The first concentration camps were built for "the Left."

Hitler wanted to get women out of the professions and put them back in the home. He wanted to control borders and expel immigrants, and deny citizenship (even residency in many cases) to people deemed not Aryan. He wanted an established church. He outlawed unions. He embraced private ownership of the means of production.

What about this was "socialsim"?

[Dill]

(07-26-2017, 08:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would agree. While both were in favor of eugenics and proponents of it, they weren't as exploitive of its potential as some others.

They were in favor of reducing poverty. Sanger insisted here entire life that reproductive choice should rest with individual women. Her job was to provide them with the medical knowledge and means to exercise their own choices. That was the degree to which she was a proponent.

[BmorePat87]

(07-26-2017, 08:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Lucie, the Nazis were not "socialists." Their first and primary enemies were socialists. I.e. "leftists," meaning real leftists and not just social liberals, though they hated liberals too. The first concentration camps were built for "the Left."

Hitler wanted to get women out of the professions and put them back in the home. He wanted to control borders and expel immigrants, and deny citizenship (even residency in many cases) to people deemed not Aryan. He wanted an established church. He outlawed unions. He embraced private ownership of the means of production.

What about this was "socialsim"?

Yea, the "Socialist" part in their name was leftover from what the party originally pushed in its anti-business populism. Did not represent the aims or views of the party from 1935 onward.