The Trans Movement Just Hit Home.......

[*Nately120*]

(06-02-2023, 04:03 PM)Eraserhead Wrote: The whole "protect the children" narrative from the right is about as fake and meaningless as it gets.

If you ever look up pro and anti-women's suffrage propaganda you'll see that both sides used "protect the children" as a basis for their claims.  






Hmm....I guess children are screwed either way.

[Eraserhead]

(06-02-2023, 04:15 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If you ever look up pro and anti-women's suffrage propaganda you'll see that both sides used "protect the children" as a basis for their claims.  






Hmm....I guess children are screwed either way.

Sure, but what does that have to do with the current insanity of manufactured outrage?

[*Nately120*]

(06-02-2023, 04:24 PM)Eraserhead Wrote: Sure, but what does that have to do with the current insanity of manufactured outrage?

I'm saying that the cry of "PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!!" has been used forever for all sorts of stuff, even being used by opposite sides at the same time.  I'd wager there has never been a time where people were using the protect the children cause to sound the alarm about something. 

I recall being a kid and hearing people claim that flouridated water was going to save me or kill me, depending on who you asked.

[Eraserhead]

(06-02-2023, 04:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm saying that the cry of "PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!!" has been used forever for all sorts of stuff, even being used by opposite sides at the same time.  I'd wager there has never been a time where people were using the protect the children cause to sound the alarm about something. 

And none of that excuses what's going on right now,, especially with the real consequences to those being targeted by this hate. Not sure why chose this route instead of addressing what's actually happening right now.

[*Nately120*]

(06-02-2023, 04:44 PM)Eraserhead Wrote: And none of that excuses what's going on right now,, especially with the real consequences to those being targeted by this hate. Not sure why chose this route instead of addressing what's actually happening right now.

I'm agreeing that it's fake outrage.  The "protect the children" argument has been used for so many things and so often that it's become more cost of entry than an actual weighted statement.

In my day politicians were protecting children from music lyrics and Mortal Kombat and now they're protecting children from supposed bathroom invaders in dresses and woke books. I don't know what is going to be deemed a danger next, but I assure you it'll be called a danger to children in order to whip up support for it.

[CJD]

Is anyone else getting a ton of notifications from this thread? My alerts say Matt has quoted me 3 times in this thread, I come here and there's no new posts. Is this thread glitched or something? Am I not seeing posts?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-02-2023, 04:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm agreeing that it's fake outrage.  The "protect the children" argument has been used for so many things and so often that it's become more cost of entry than an actual weighted statement.

In my day politicians were protecting children from music lyrics and Mortal Kombat and now they're protecting children from supposed bathroom invaders in dresses and woke books.  I don't know what is going to be deemed a danger next, but I assure you it'll be called a danger to children in order to whip up support for it.

I don't disagree with your general position.  In fact I've absolutely made the argument here that the anti 2A people always use "protect the children" to justify their proposed infringements.  That being said, there is a noticeable difference here.  We prohibit those under eighteen from doing a slew of things, vote, drink, smoke, gamble, etc. because they aren't mature enough to handle those things.  I have a hard time reconciling that accepted way of thinking with allowing them to make unalterable and massive changes to their body that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

[GMDino]

(06-03-2023, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with your general position.  In fact I've absolutely made the argument here that the anti 2A people always use "protect the children" to justify their proposed infringements.  That being said, there is a noticeable difference here.  We prohibit those under eighteen from doing a slew of things, vote, drink, smoke, gamble, etc. because they aren't mature enough to handle those things.  I have a hard time reconciling that accepted way of thinking with allowing them to make unalterable and massive changes to their body that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

TBF guns actually harm children.  Drag queens/trans people, books do not.  So....

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2023, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with your general position.  In fact I've absolutely made the argument here that the anti 2A people always use "protect the children" to justify their proposed infringements.  That being said, there is a noticeable difference here.  We prohibit those under eighteen from doing a slew of things, vote, drink, smoke, gamble, etc. because they aren't mature enough to handle those things.  I have a hard time reconciling that accepted way of thinking with allowing them to make unalterable and massive changes to their body that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

I'm speaking more towards the notion that trans people and letting trans people be part of normal society is what harms children, not the transitioning of children themselves.

And maturity isn't measured by these laws, it's the simple legality of declaring a person who is 18 to be an adult because that's really all the schooling we want to give them for free.  Our rules are pretty weird if you think about them.  At 16 I can pilot a 2000lb missile legally, but I can't rent one, and I can't smoke a lucky strike while I do so, and if I'm out driving and someone causes a ruckus I can't legally carry a firearm to protect myself.

It's all about money and legality, maturity?  What is that, even?  I think a lot of people aged 18 and way up describing trans and gay people as gross and weird to be somewhat immature, but now I'm rambling.  Maturity doesn't magically come at 18 and for many it never comes at all.

And I'd devil's advocate argue that the best way to scare kids out of transitioning before they are 18 is to let some kids do it and then parade the regretful ones in front of every right-wing private school.  This is Johnny...he's got a busted wiener because he thought being turned into a girl would be totally rad.  See?  This are just like those "scared straight" videos that apply to crime and driving like a maniac we have to show kids.


And I'll only mention this country loving to deny that people under 18 are mature enough to do anything other than stuff that can lead them to being gleefully tried as an adult.

[GMDino]

(06-03-2023, 12:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm speaking more towards the notion that trans people and letting trans people be part of normal society is what harms children, not the transitioning of children themselves.

And maturity isn't measured by these laws, it's the simple legality of declaring a person who is 18 to be an adult because that's really all the schooling we want to give them for free.  Our rules are pretty weird if you think about them.  At 16 I can pilot a 2000lb missile legally, but I can't rent one, and I can't smoke a lucky strike while I do so, and if I'm out driving and someone causes a ruckus I can't legally carry a firearm to protect myself.

It's all about money and legality, maturity?  What is that, even?  I think a lot of people aged 18 and way up describing trans and gay people as gross and weird to be somewhat immature, but now I'm rambling.  Maturity doesn't magically come at 18 and for many it never comes at all.

And I'd devil's advocate argue that the best way to scare kids out of transitioning before they are 18 is to let some kids do it and then parade the regretful ones in front of every right-wing private school.  This is Johnny...he's got a busted wiener because he thought being turned into a girl would be totally rad.  See?  This are just like those "scared straight" videos that apply to crime and driving like a maniac we have to show kids.


And I'll only mention this country loving to deny that people under 18 are mature enough to do anything other than stuff that can lead them to being gleefully tried as an adult.

Marriage is legal if you under 18 in parts of the country.  No age limit in some parts.

You are "too young" at 15 to decide if you can abort your rapists child...and mature enough to be forced to carry it to term and care for it.

Parents should decide what is best for their children!  Unless it comes to anything involving sex or sexuality...or reading a book.  Then the STATE knows what is best!

Weird world...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-03-2023, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: TBF guns actually harm children.  Drag queens/trans people, books do not.  So....

To be fair, I didn't say drag queens or transgender people harmed kids.  What I did say was the HRT and irreversible surgery done to minors can, and does, cause them lifelong harm.  Kindly stick to responding to arguments I actually make.

As for kids and firearms, if you're not a teenage gang member your chances of being shot as a child are extremely slight.  You're light years more likely to die in a car accident.  http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/children-and-guns/

(06-03-2023, 12:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm speaking more towards the notion that trans people and letting trans people be part of normal society is what harms children, not the transitioning of children themselves.

And there are certainly some people who think that way.  But I think you'll find that the vast majority of the uproar over transgender people is what's being done to children.  Next on the list would be transwomen in women's only spaces, such as locker rooms, shelters and sports.  I think the vast, vast majority of people are live and let live.  It's when it harms children or intrudes on others that people start to take issue.

Quote:And maturity isn't measured by these laws, it's the simple legality of declaring a person who is 18 to be an adult because that's really all the schooling we want to give them for free.  Our rules are pretty weird if you think about them.  At 16 I can pilot a 2000lb missile legally, but I can't rent one, and I can't smoke a lucky strike while I do so, and if I'm out driving and someone causes a ruckus I can't legally carry a firearm to protect myself.

I certainly won't argue that the ages we set are rather arbitrary.  But seeing as they exist one should logically follow them.  If you go strictly on science then no one should be voting, drinking, gambling etc. until they're twenty-five, when the brain becomes fully developed.  Oddly enough, no one is advocating for that.

Quote:It's all about money and legality, maturity?  What is that, even?  I think a lot of people aged 18 and way up describing trans and gay people as gross and weird to be somewhat immature, but now I'm rambling.  Maturity doesn't magically come at 18 and for many it never comes at all.

And I'd devil's advocate argue that the best way to scare kids out of transitioning before they are 18 is to let some kids do it and then parade the regretful ones in front of every right-wing private school.  This is Johnny...he's got a busted wiener because he thought being turned into a girl would be totally rad.  See?  This are just like those "scared straight" videos that apply to crime and driving like a maniac we have to show kids.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of allowing some people to ruin their lives so they can be an abject warning to others.  I know that you're not advocating for that either.  But if we set arbitrary ages for activities with much less long term consequence then should we not stick to the reasoning behind that?

Quote:And I'll only mention this country loving to deny that people under 18 are mature enough to do anything other than stuff that can lead them to being gleefully tried as an adult.

As you might expect this topic comes up among my peers all the time.  Under CA law there are a certain subset of crimes, listed under 707(b) WIC, that a minor can be potentially tried as an adult.  As you would expect they are the most serious crimes.  The limit of juvenile jurisdiction in CA is age 25, and that only if you've committed a 707b offense and had the petition sustained in delinquency court.  Without the ability to transfer jurisdiction to adult court the most a 17 years old who murdered multiple people could serve in detention would be eight years.  You should see some of the crimes these teenagers commit, absolutely brutal and cold blooded.  Imagine being the family of a murder victim and finding out that the most time your loved one's killer can receive is eight years and then their completely free.  I've interacted with numerous victims and families and I can tell you it's gut wrenching to just talk with them, let alone actually be one of them.

[GMDino]

(06-03-2023, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To be fair, I didn't say drag queens or transgender people harmed kids.  What I did say was the HRT and irreversible surgery done to minors can, and does, cause them lifelong harm.  Kindly stick to responding to arguments I actually make.

The thread is about the trans "movement".

But to the point the state is deciding what parents can and cannot do with their own children. Putting aside the arbitrary age of 18 if the parents agree what is is the issue? The party of small government wants to tell you (well anyone with children) what they can do in their private lives...but only when it comes to sexuality. The bulwark of the gop platform is now the culture wars about how gay people are bad for children.

(06-03-2023, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for kids and firearms, if you're not a teenage gang member your chances of being shot as a child are extremely slight.  You're light years more likely to die in a car accident.  http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/children-and-guns/

Aye, and guns still kill more children than trans people. Thanks.

But we "can't do anything about guns". We CAN try and close businesses that allow drag shows, threaten doctors and parents with jail time for caring for a minor, even with consent, etc. At least that what the right and the two top contenders for the POTUS say.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-03-2023, 02:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: The thread is about the trans "movement".

Yes, the thread title clued me in. 

Quote:But to the point the state is deciding what parents can and cannot do with their own children.  Putting aside the arbitrary age of 18 if the parents agree what is is the issue?  The party of small government wants to tell you (well anyone with children) what they can do in their private lives...but only when it comes to sexuality.  The bulwark of the gop platform is now the culture wars about how gay people are bad for children.

So you're saying there aren't other limits on what parents can and cannot do their children?  Could you take a child to the doctor and ask to have their right hand cut off so they're forced to be a leftie?  Yes, this is an intentionally extreme example, but it's permanent bodily mutilation, exactly like a double mastectomy. 

Quote:Aye, and guns still kill more children than trans people.  Thanks.

Again, arguing against a point I didn't make.  It would save us all time if you just admit you have no counterargument rather than arguing against points I never made.

Quote:But we "can't do anything about guns".  We CAN try and close businesses that allow drag shows, threaten doctors and parents with jail time for caring for a minor, even with consent, etc.  At least that what the right and the two top contenders for the POTUS say.

I'm sorry, what do you mean "we can't do anything about guns?  Gun laws are passed all the time.  In TN they passed a law hardening schools with armed security in response to the transgender mass shooter.  So apparently you can do something about guns.  So, on to your next point.  I'm not a fan of closing businesses to host drag shows.  I am also not a fan of taking children to a hyper-sexualized show of any kind, trans, drag, straight or gay.  Before you make the strawman, I don't like children's beauty pageants either.  But, when you get into permanent bodily mutilation or lifelong affect for HRT, yes, there is an argument to be made against them.  If you fail to see that then you're far too gone to have a rational discussion with on this issue.

[*pally*]

What we should understand is that most of what is being said publically by the right-wing media and supporters about transgendered children is exaggerated, false, and in most cases wrong. Just like the implications that being a member of the LGBTQ community makes one a pedophile. Or reading about someone who was/is gay can change one's sexuality. Like reading or talking about racism builds racists, victims, or perpetrators. Or watching a drag show "sexualizes" children.

Most of the rhetoric is designed to rile up, infuriate, and scare those who avoid actual critical thinking and choose to keep their information gathering to a few repetitive, extremist media sources. The power brokers on the right want you to focus on their made-up culture war so you don't notice they are screwing you with the rest of their policies that are designed to protect their donor class at everyone else's expense

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2023, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And there are certainly some people who think that way.  But I think you'll find that the vast majority of the uproar over transgender people is what's being done to children.  Next on the list would be transwomen in women's only spaces, such as locker rooms, shelters and sports.  I think the vast, vast majority of people are live and let live.  It's when it harms children or intrudes on others that people start to take issue.

I think the legislation we've been seeing runs contrary to your statement. It still may be the majority focusing on that stuff, but it isn't in any way "vast." I would also be more inclined to agree with you if legislation targeting gender affirming care focused only on HRT and surgery. However, the legislation being passed makes it illegal for a minor to receive psychological treatment that in any way provides them support in a trans identity.

Let's also be clear, surgery for a minor is exceedingly rare. HRT is rare, but not as much so and more for older adolescents. Puberty blockers are more common and are a reversible treatment. However, if a young person recognizes their identity at an early enough age the use of them in the prevention of gender dysphoria is crucial, as is psychological and social affirmation. Denying those things to young trans people can be damaging to them and is a step backwards in society.

I think that the reality of all of this was laid bare when a state legislator, I believe in Montana, said they would rather their child be dead than trans. They may be using the cover of "protecting the children," but everything they are doing is more harmful to children than helpful and is more about the erasure of trans people in society.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-03-2023, 04:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the legislation we've been seeing runs contrary to your statement. It still may be the majority focusing on that stuff, but it isn't in any way "vast." I would also be more inclined to agree with you if legislation targeting gender affirming care focused only on HRT and surgery. However, the legislation being passed makes it illegal for a minor to receive psychological treatment that in any way provides them support in a trans identity.

And in those instances I would be 100% against it.  No one should be denied psychological treatment for any malady, perceived, imaginary or otherwise.

Quote:Let's also be clear, surgery for a minor is exceedingly rare. HRT is rare, but not as much so and more for older adolescents.

Being rare doesn't make them any more acceptable or their consequences any less significant.

Quote:Puberty blockers are more common and are a reversible treatment. However, if a young person recognizes their identity at an early enough age the use of them in the prevention of gender dysphoria is crucial, as is psychological and social affirmation. Denying those things to young trans people can be damaging to them and is a step backwards in society.

Are puberty blockers reversible?  There doesn't seem to be a consensus on this now.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

I also find it hard to believe that making major changes to a person's hormonal development will not have long term effects.  I understand for people truly suffering from gender dysphoria that preventing puberty can be helpful.  Can you definitively state that these instances justify their use, especially when the consensus on their reversibility is no longer a consensus?

Quote:I think that the reality of all of this was laid bare when a state legislator, I believe in Montana, said they would rather their child be dead than trans. They may be using the cover of "protecting the children," but everything they are doing is more harmful to children than helpful and is more about the erasure of trans people in society.

No, you absolutely cannot use one extreme person's statement as indicative of the position of everyone else on that side of the issue.  That would be like me saying that a BLM leader who calls for the killing of law enforcement officers is proof that all BLM supporters want to murder law enforcement. There are absolutely people motivated by bigotry on both sides of this issue.  I don't think either extreme is indicative of the opinions of the rest.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2023, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And in those instances I would be 100% against it.  No one should be denied psychological treatment for any malady, perceived, imaginary or otherwise.

Agreed

(06-03-2023, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Being rare doesn't make them any more acceptable or their consequences any less significant.

Agreed. However, the focus on the exceptions to the rule and using those rare circumstances to enact much broader reaching policy is questionable.

(06-03-2023, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are puberty blockers reversible?  There doesn't seem to be a consensus on this now.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

I also find it hard to believe that making major changes to a person's hormonal development will not have long term effects.  I understand for people truly suffering from gender dysphoria that preventing puberty can be helpful.  Can you definitively state that these instances justify their use, especially when the consensus on their reversibility is no longer a consensus?

From the link you shared:

Quote:Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.

Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

Right now the consensus is that there are no known irreversible effects from puberty blockers. More studies are obviously needed, as is the case with all of these things. The issue is that we can only do studies on this sort of thing as they come along.

(06-03-2023, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you absolutely cannot use on extreme person's statement as indicative of the position of everyone else on that side of the issue.  That would be like me saying that a BLM leader who calls for the killing of law enforcement officers is proof that all BLM supporters want to murder law enforcement. There are absolutely people motivated by bigotry on both sides of this issue.  I don't think either extreme is indicative of the opinions of the rest.

Fair. I just haven't heard any condemnation of that statement out of anyone in the Montana legislature on their side of the vote. I understand if someone not there doesn't know about it to condemn it, but those that heard those words aren't saying anything and that, to me, says a lot.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-03-2023, 05:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Agreed


Agreed. However, the focus on the exceptions to the rule and using those rare circumstances to enact much broader reaching policy is questionable.

I agree with you as well.  I would add that if they confined it strictly to HRT and irreversible surgeries then many of the same people would be making the same accusations of transphobic bigotry.  I think we both know we're not talking about a fringe minority in that regard either.

Quote:From the link you shared:

Right now the consensus is that there are no known irreversible effects from puberty blockers. More studies are obviously needed, as is the case with all of these things. The issue is that we can only do studies on this sort of thing as they come along.

Exactly, we don't know.  So why are we using literal children as guinea pigs in this regard?  Because it might help some of them?  Because it might not cause long term damage?  That's not medicine and it's not science

Quote:Fair. I just haven't heard any condemnation of that statement out of anyone in the Montana legislature on their side of the vote. I understand if someone not there doesn't know about it to condemn it, but those that heard those words aren't saying anything and that, to me, says a lot.

And I would wholeheartedly agree with you, just as I would in the BLM example I gave.  Sadly, many of us will overlook extreme positions or statements from those on our side of an issue.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2023, 05:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly, we don't know.  So why are we using literal children as guinea pigs in this regard?  Because it might help some of them?  Because it might not cause long term damage?  That's not medicine and it's not science

Actually, it is medicine and science. There are no other ways to test these things. Now, we can do everything possible to mitigate risks such as making sure there are strict requirements for starting puberty blockers, let alone HRT or surgery.

I started a medication at the age of three for allergies. I was on that medication for roughly 10 years. One of the side effects that was unknown at the time was weight gain. When you look at pictures of me before I started that medication and in the first year, normal weight. I steadily gained weight throughout my childhood despite being a very active kid. Played baseball, did wrestling, was always outside, etc. I couldn't play football until high school because of weight limits, unfortunately. Anyway, that drug was taken off the market in 1999 for several reasons, but not before that damage was done. Something my parents were never told about.

This isn't the only story like that. We, society that is, put drugs out all the time without knowing everything they will do. It's a regular part of how we do business around the world. We work to mitigate risks and we compensate for issues when we can, but that is absolutely how we further scientific knowledge in the field of medicine.

[BigPapaKain]

(06-03-2023, 05:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, it is medicine and science. There are no other ways to test these things. Now, we can do everything possible to mitigate risks such as making sure there are strict requirements for starting puberty blockers, let alone HRT or surgery.

I started a medication at the age of three for allergies. I was on that medication for roughly 10 years. One of the side effects that was unknown at the time was weight gain. When you look at pictures of me before I started that medication and in the first year, normal weight. I steadily gained weight throughout my childhood despite being a very active kid. Played baseball, did wrestling, was always outside, etc. I couldn't play football until high school because of weight limits, unfortunately. Anyway, that drug was taken off the market in 1999 for several reasons, but not before that damage was done. Something my parents were never told about.

This isn't the only story like that. We, society that is, put drugs out all the time without knowing everything they will do. It's a regular part of how we do business around the world. We work to mitigate risks and we compensate for issues when we can, but that is absolutely how we further scientific knowledge in the field of medicine.

Furthering scientific knowledge in the field of medicine sounds like socialist nonsense #gopthinking