- Essentially my point. The lead story is not that you are anti-transgenderism, or anti-LGBTQ. The lead story, the whole truth is that it is modern feminism you'd like to eradicate. Well, the Republican Party certainly agrees with you.
Well, if you asked me personally this question, I would like to eradicate, any moral system or ideology created by people that dictates how people should act.
But this debate is about Transgender Ideology, not Feminism, so let's keep it on topic.
Also, I do hold a lot of Republican values, but I don't think I would call myself Republican.
- I refute that Transgender Ideology is the proper label for what you are opposing.
- I think NOW summed it up best: all people are valid in their stated identities.
Ok, so you explained it as:
"all people are valid in their stated identities."
This means (in your words) that the Transgender Ideology supports:
Men becoming Women.
Women becoming Men.
Adults becoming Kids.
Humans, becoming Animals.
The idea of more than 2 genders.
The idea of a genderless person.
And the list could go on, because I could identify as literally anything.
With this definition you are basically supporting someone who could want to be identified as an attack helicopter. And this would be valid?
- All American speech uses the First Ammendment
True. Americans do use their 1st Amendment rights to speak freely, because these are unalienable rights that we as humans should have.
- the Feminist philosophy stating that " all people are valid in their stated identities" tests most Americans' commitment to free expression. Hence, reinforcement for those who pass the test.
Again, not talking about Feminism. Answer this question relating to Transgenderism.
- By nature and design, The First Ammendment is threatened on a continuous basis.
Let's look at the 1st Amendment:
I would actually argue that out of all of those rights, the only ones that haven't been directly threatened in recent years, is the right to peacefully assemble, establishing a national religion, and freedom of expression.
Every other right in the 1st Amendment has been attacked in recent years in one way or another.
- In the same post you ask me to explain the Transgender Ideology to you but also state that whatever you end up learning Transgenderism to be, it is the opposite of free expression. That is a very nice textbook example of prejudice of course. You are still waiting for the premise but alas, your conclusion has arrived.
I am explaining my view of Transgenderism and how I think it effects society and people.
I am giving you an option to change the definition of what you think Transgenderism despite my bias, so that I can argue based off of that.
- Has it ever occurred to you that the demographic is not expanding but only coming out of the closet? A Constitutional protection for transpeople was only affirmed by Supreme Court in 2020.
This is idiotic.
Are Trans-people, people?
If yes (which they are) then that means that they have always had Constitutional protection.
Not fifteen years ago, an employee of 20 years at HP sent an email on Friday promising a radical change in his look on Monday morning. Certain that he was going to come to work in a dress, mgmt. fired him on Friday night. Turns out the poor bastard had only decided to give up on his increasingly obvious toupee. Of course there great hue and cry from the proletartiat but no appeal could entertained.
- That is, just fifteen years ago it was perfectly normal to fire an employee just for making the boss think he might make an adjustment to his stated gender identity.
I think it is common sense, and a smart idea to fire someone who has a mental illness, from a job that you manage.
Also, this isn't infringing on the rights of a Trans-person. This is called firing, and everyone is subject to it.
- Let's agree that being fired for being trans is a very good reason for trans people to never speak honestly in public about their identity. It has only been okay to say your trans in public for the last three years. Occam's razor suggest that the very recent and substantial decrease in threat to trans people's livlihood is the direct and entirely sufficient cause to explain the increase about which you hysterically overreaact.
Good point. This is a valid argument.
But let's look at the statistics:
If you read these articles and their findings, I think you will find something interesting.
The majority of Transgender people in the U.S. are part of the younger generation.
Now if your argument is true and there were many transgender people before, not wanting to come out, then you would see an influx in adults who have at least lived through the 2000s, or at least a similar amount to youth.
But you don't see this, you see the majority of this population of transgenders is kids, teens, and young adults. Why do you think that is?
- Only the Republicans are at war with culture: culture is a mirror and vampires resent their lack of reflection. The trans folks are just trying to find a way to be public and honest about who they are. Certainly, it worked out better for the rest of the LGB's.
Almost no one is stopping any Trans-person from being public and honest about who they are. So, what exactly are they trying to find a way to do?
- You mean what do they (trans citizens) contribute.
No, I am asking if this ideology is in fact beneficial, it should be reflected in the policy's that this ideology enacts, and the people it persuades right?
- Same as you contribute, you little shithead, or any other citizen although considering your age probably a whole lot more than you in terms of labor, commericial particpation, ideas, civic participation, public service, art, taxes, etc.
- Do really imagine that trans-people can't contribute same as you?
Again, Ideology reflects itself in the people it persuades.
- Do you think that you are a contribution o society? and if you answer yes, let's assume the average trans person contributes more good to society.
I think that what I do in society benefits it, not just me existing as a person.
Thats why I ask you what this ideology does for society.
Everybody agrees there are differences- You contradict most biologists, the AMA, the APA by claiming that those differences are black and white and cleanly dilineated. That is very old school thinking long disproved by science.
Did you even attempt to read my findings and article?
It's a fun read and very intriguing.
- Most famous biologists don't think there are differences between man and women? I don't buy that. That's just another straw man. Name a few famous biologist who say there is no difference btween male and females brains.
Ok, first of all, you were the one who claimed this:
"Almost all scientists agree that there exist biological "shades of gray" between men and women that sometimes manifest as trangenderism or other nonbinary nonconformities."
I am the one who said that I don't agree this statement to be true. I said the majority of scientists who get media attention are the ones claiming there is grey area.
I never claimed that these biologists are claiming that there are no differences between men and women. You sir were just caught with a red herring.
Most of all biologists agree that men and women are different. That is obvious.
What most of the media pushed ones are trying to claim (this majority of biologists that you claim), is that there is more of grey area in sex than we thought, which they don't have any concrete evidence for. All of their findings come out unconcluded.
Name a few famous biologist who say there is no difference btween male and females brains.
So, I don't have to prove this, because it does nothing to what I said, and is nothing but a red herring.
- Oh, so you think "almost all" scientists are insincere in their findings and so easily swayed by external pressure? You think Science generally is conspiring together to conceal from you what Scientists really, secretly think about gender dimorphism and it just so happens that Science's top-secret, uncoerced opinion matches your own?
Yes. This is exactly what I think. Especially in America, where corruption is key for control. Look at what the experts said for covid. They said wear a mask and get vaccinated. Turns out, you didn't need a mask, or a vaccine, because it didn't make a difference.
If that's is your general opinion of Science (and I can't say I'll surprised that it is) then why the hell bother claiming in the OP that you want to stick to science and biology.
Because there are legitimate biological principals that aren't lining up with theses "new study's". Again, these scientists can't blatantly go against basic biological principals, so they will try to find a way to sway people into thinking there is a chance for a different outlook on things. Almost every modern-day advanced society has used these basic biological principals to study biology and new findings. The reason why these new scientists aren't finding anything, is because they aren't using these basic high school biological principles that ground biology as a whole.
If these so-called biologists are studying biology, don't you think that they should base it in biology? Otherwise, it is a whole different study and not a biological one.
- OK, let's hear your brilliant plan to eradicate transgenderism while upholding the Constitution and remaining a moral man
Well, it all boils down to transgenderism being an ideology. This is the plan.
Schools, Government systems, and things that ground how our society thrives needs to get rid of this idea of transgenderism, or at least not be allowed to promote it, just as schools, and governments aren't allowed to use Christianity to base things in.
Now people can choose to be transgender and live their life without the actual help they deserve, but this ideology should only go down to an individual level, and not a governmental legislative level.
Only American principles should be promoted, because after all, we live in America.
