American Kids In Crisis: Daily Caller’s ‘Do No Harm’ To Expose Fallout Of The Transgender Movement

[Larniavc]

I know right. I'm living a normal life. The trans activists are demanding we live abnormal ones.

I’m sure that you haven’t missed the irony of your point from the position of a non-Christian living in a typically majority Christian society?

Being told by Christians how society should be is as old as the hills.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The trans activists are demanding we live abnormal ones.

No Trans Activists has demanded or even asked me to live an abnormal life or any one else I know. But plenty of "Normal" people have told me what I can and can't buy on Sunday, what I can read at the Library, or look at on the internet.

 

[rjs330]

You're being dishonest and disingenuous.

-- A2SG, I thought you were better than that...guess I was wrong....

Look it's very obvious that you sincerely believe that there isn't a way to invalidate someone's identity. There is one thing we agree on which is anyone can identify how ever they want.

You also say you have no way to invalidate their identity. Yet you did do it. The child said they were yours. They identified as your child and by our agreement they could identify as that if they wish. No one can stop them. Yet you found a legitimate way to invalidate that identity as soon as an obligation was incurred for you to have to do something to validate their identity. As soon as the child want d you to do something to validate their identity you said you were not going to do it. And you had valid reasons to do so on the basis of reality. The reality of biology. You used the reality of biology to invalidate their identity. I know you did not feel like you did, but you did. In essence you told them they are not your child and you were not going to treat them as such. If you acted toward that child, according to your philosophy, you would have to treat them as if they are b cause you don't know if they are or aren't. You invalidated their identity by telling them they are not actually what they identified as.

When they asked you to identify them.as your child to everyone around you, you didn't do it. That invalidated their identity.

Simply pointing out what you did is not being dishonest at all. It's showing you that you did exactly what we do in regards to people with trans identity. I know you don't see it. I do. And I agree with you even if you refuse to see it . There are absolutely ways to invalidate someone's identity. Biology is one of them and that's what you used to show that what they believed wasn't real.

 

[Pommer]

Look it's very obvious that you sincerely believe that there isn't a way to invalidate someone's identity. There is one thing we agree on which is anyone can identify how ever they want.

You also say you have know way to invalidate their identity. Yet you did do it. The child said they were yours. They identified as your child and by our agreement they could identify as that if they wish. No one can stop them. Yet you found a valid way to invalidate that identity as soon as an obligation was incurred for you to have to do something to validate their identity. As soon as the child want d you to do something to validate their identity you said you were not going to do it. And you had valid reasons to do so on the basis of reality. The reality of biology. You used the reality of biology to invalidate their identity. I know you did not feel like you did, but you did. In essence you told them they are not your child and you were not going to treat them as such. If you were going to validate their identity to say they are what they say they are you would have to treat them as if they are. You invalidated their identity by telling them they are not actually what they identified as.

When they asked you to identify them.as your child to everyone around you, you didn't do it. That invalidated their identity.

Simply pointing out what you did is not being dishonest at all. It's showing you that you did exactly what we do in regards to people with trans identity. I know you don't see it. I do. And I agree with you even if you refuse to see it . There are absolutely ways to invalidate someone's identity.

But for a child who is transgender, “normal” is to get gender-affirming care until they turn (at least) 18 when they’re able to decide whether or not to get surgical care as well.

Your position would deny them of this “normality”.

My position is to triage, triage triage and weed out the confused and desperate (running away from their true identity by hiding in “another gender”), and allow the real, actual, transgender kids to receive the care that they’ll need for their future.

Please enjoy being the arbiter of other people’s lives.

 

[rjs330]

I’m sure that you haven’t missed the irony of your point from the position of a non-Christian living in a typically majority Christian society?

Being told by Christians how society should be is as old as the hills.

Well everyone feels that way always about the other political side. And everyone doesn't want the other political side telling them what to do. THATS what is old as the hills. You act as if it's only Christans who do it. You know all Christians are not a monolith. All kinds of them have different political views in things. So if you are calling for irony I think you are also pointing the finger at yourself.

Is it really ironic or is just the way things are? Maybe both. But pretty much 100% of us are ironic if your point is a serious one.

 

[rjs330]

No Trans Activists has demanded or even asked me to live an abnormal life or any one else I know. But plenty of "Normal" people have told me what I can and can't buy on Sunday, what I can read at the Library, or look at on the internet.

You think you are in an island then? Just because one hasn't asked your personally to live an abnormal life therefore they haven't demanded that from anyone?

Well it has affected me so now you know someone who has been involved.

 

[rjs330]

But for a child who is transgender, “normal” is to get gender-affirming care until they turn (at least) 18 when they’re able to decide whether or not to get surgical care as well.

Your position would deny them of this “normality”.

My position is to triage, triage triage and weed out the confused and desperate (running away from their true identity by hiding in “another gender”), and allow the real, actual, transgender kids to receive the care that they’ll need for their future.

Please enjoy being the arbiter of other people’s lives.

The issue has been in the US there wasn't any triage triage triage. It was to immediately affirm affirm affirm.

What you want is what Europe is doing. And you know what, that's what I want too. Most of the countries do not medicalize the kids. They provide triage and treatment for them to weed them out and provide the treatment necessary for them to work through the issues they are dealing with. Only in the most extreme of cases so they go beyond that. And then only in a research atmosphere.

Normal is not abnormal. Normal for a mentally ill person is not normal. Unreality is normal for some, but it's not normal for society. We don't and shouldn't treat it that way. We recognize it as an illness and don't treat it as normal for all. We don't ask everyone to live as if it is.

And with kids so many have other issues that being trans is the least of the problems and it's the "answer" they settled in because it is so hyped these days as the thing. It's a way out for a fairly large amount of gay kids. Autism plays a part, social media plays a part. Just general mental health plays a part.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

You think you are in an island then? Just because one hasn't asked your personally to live an abnormal life therefore they haven't demanded that from anyone?

Well it has affected me so now you know someone who has been involved.

I don't think I am on an Island, my home is in Fremont Michigan, the birthplace of Gerber Baby food and a good solid Jesus and Trump loving utopia with Republican approved libraries. However, at the moment, I am deployed on a big grey Navy ship in the 5th Fleet. Contrary to what the Right wing talking heads are saying about the weak and woke the military, we have no trans activists onboard forcing us to conform to the trans agenda. We also don't have gay story time over the 1MC (pa system) Instead, we are more concerned about Houthi drones and missiles. My female wife is still in Fremont and she says it is still a pure environment with no diversity with the sole exception of the one Jewish woman and the few Hispanic migrant workers that are still there.

Also, after re-reading my post, I did not see anywhere that I said that because no one has asked me that I said they haven't asked anyone.

I am sorry that trans activists are harassing you. Have you considered moving to an area that has more like minded people as yourself and fewer trans activists?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am deployed on a big grey Navy ship

They haven't repainted in with the colors of the pride flag yet?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

They haven't repainted in with the colors of the pride flag yet?

Not yet...

But I did see a solid pink ship near the Suez Canal, but it has something to do with breast cancer awareness.

 

[Pommer]

The issue has been in the US there wasn't any triage triage triage. It was to immediately affirm affirm affirm.

What you want is what Europe is doing. And you know what, that's what I want too. Most of the countries do not medicalize the kids. They provide triage and treatment for them to weed them out and provide the treatment necessary for them to work through the issues they are dealing with. Only in the most extreme of cases so they go beyond that. And then only in a research atmosphere.

Normal is not abnormal. Normal for a mentally ill person is not normal. Unreality is normal for some, but it's not normal for society. We don't and shouldn't treat it that way. We recognize it as an illness and don't treat it as normal for all. We don't ask everyone to live as if it is.

And with kids so many have other issues that being trans is the least of the problems and it's the "answer" they settled in because it is so hyped these days as the thing. It's a way out for a fairly large amount of gay kids. Autism plays a part, social media plays a part. Just general mental health plays a part.

What’s so difficult about being a decent human being to people who are afflicted with a horrible malady that we are learning how to treat effectively?

 

[A2SG]

Look it's very obvious that you sincerely believe that there isn't a way to invalidate someone's identity. There is one thing we agree on which is anyone can identify how ever they want.

You also say you have no way to invalidate their identity. Yet you did do it. The child said they were yours. They identified as your child and by our agreement they could identify as that if they wish. No one can stop them. Yet you found a legitimate way to invalidate that identity as soon as an obligation was incurred for you to have to do something to validate their identity. As soon as the child want d you to do something to validate their identity you said you were not going to do it. And you had valid reasons to do so on the basis of reality. The reality of biology. You used the reality of biology to invalidate their identity. I know you did not feel like you did, but you did. In essence you told them they are not your child and you were not going to treat them as such. If you acted toward that child, according to your philosophy, you would have to treat them as if they are b cause you don't know if they are or aren't. You invalidated their identity by telling them they are not actually what they identified as.

When they asked you to identify them.as your child to everyone around you, you didn't do it. That invalidated their identity.

Simply pointing out what you did is not being dishonest at all. It's showing you that you did exactly what we do in regards to people with trans identity. I know you don't see it. I do. And I agree with you even if you refuse to see it . There are absolutely ways to invalidate someone's identity. Biology is one of them and that's what you used to show that what they believed wasn't real.

Let me try this again. And please, pay attention this time:

Identity is SUBJECTIVE. There is no way to validate it, or invalidate it. No more than you can invalidate someone's taste in music, their preference for DC over Marvel, or if they like pineapple on their pizza.

If some kid says they identify as my kid, I can't validate or invalidate their identity. They are free to believe that all they like, it has no effect on me whatsoever.

But, if they choose to go beyond that, and claim I have a legal responsibility to them based on me being their father, that's something else entirely. That's a legal claim, based on DNA. DNA is OBJECTIVE. It can be tested empirically. That legal claim can be invalidated by a simple paternity test, that will prove I'm not their father.

In a paternity suit, does the judge ask the kid if they identify as the child of the person in question, and decide paternity based on that? No. And there's a reason for that (see above).

So I'm not invalidating their identity, no matter how many times you pretend I am. I'm invalidating their legal claim on me. Their identity can remain whatever they want it to be, no matter what the results of the paternity test prove.

What you're doing is conflating biology and identity. They're not the same, as I've explained repeatedly. Biology is OBJECTIVE, while identity is SUBJECTIVE. Biology can be proven empirically, identity cannot. Legal claims, like paternity, are based on biology, not identity.

Yes, there is a similarity between that kid and a trans person: in both cases, their identity doesn't match their biology. But the significant difference between them is, a man who identifies as a woman does not place any kind of legal burden on anyone else because of that. And because there is no legal burden, there's no need to prove or validate their identity, even if some way existed to do that.

Now, I know you're going to bring up the claim that your job requires you to acknowledge a trans person's identity. That isn't a legal burden, there is no law on the books in any state that requires you to do that. Your employer may require it if they choose, and you agree to do that if you want to continue being employed, but that's entirely voluntary. The law doesn't require it of you, or anyone.

Now, I've explained this as simply as I know how. If you want to continue this disingenuous argument, then I'll have no choice but to conclude one of two things: either you're being intentionally dishonest, or you're not smart enough to understand what I've explained.

I believe you're smart enough to understand. Which leaves me one option. But, for the moment, I'll assume you're only being disingenuous, not dishonest.

-- A2SG, don't prove me wrong, dude....

 

[rjs330]

Also, after re-reading my post, I did not see anywhere that I said that because no one has asked me that I said they haven't asked anyone.

I am sorry that trans activists are harassing you. Have you considered moving to an area that has more like minded people as yourself and fewer trans activists?

First off your comment intimated it isn't a big deal because neither you nor anyone you know has been has been asked or demanded of by transactivists.

And now you are proving the point I've made which is the activists have great power. They are not a marginalized group if they can harass you to the point of compliance or lose your job and leave where you've lived over half your life and the entirety of your children's and grandchildren lives.

 

[rjs330]

What’s so difficult about being a decent human being to people who are afflicted with a horrible malady that we are learning how to treat effectively?

Who's not being a decent human being? Being a decent human being has nothing to do with allowing someone with a malady of this sort walk all over you and society, threaten your job and force women to give up their spaces.

Being a decent human being has nothing to do with allowing people to destroy children's bodies for something we are just learning to treat effectively.

Being a decent human being would not subject that upon kids.

 

[rjs330]

Let me try this again. And please, pay attention this time:

Identity is SUBJECTIVE. There is no way to validate it, or invalidate it. No more than you can invalidate someone's taste in music, their preference for DC over Marvel, or if they like pineapple on their pizza.

If some kid says they identify as my kid, I can't validate or invalidate their identity. They are free to believe that all they like, it has no effect on me whatsoever.

But, if they choose to go beyond that, and claim I have a legal responsibility to them based on me being their father, that's something else entirely. That's a legal claim, based on DNA. DNA is OBJECTIVE. It can be tested empirically. That legal claim can be invalidated by a simple paternity test, that will prove I'm not their father.

In a paternity suit, does the judge ask the kid if they identify as the child of the person in question, and decide paternity based on that? No. And there's a reason for that (see above).

So I'm not invalidating their identity, no matter how many times you pretend I am. I'm invalidating their legal claim on me. Their identity can remain whatever they want it to be, no matter what the results of the paternity test prove.

What you're doing is conflating biology and identity. They're not the same, as I've explained repeatedly. Biology is OBJECTIVE, while identity is SUBJECTIVE. Biology can be proven empirically, identity cannot. Legal claims, like paternity, are based on biology, not identity.

Yes, there is a similarity between that kid and a trans person: in both cases, their identity doesn't match their biology. But the significant difference between them is, a man who identifies as a woman does not place any kind of legal burden on anyone else because of that. And because there is no legal burden, there's no need to prove or validate their identity, even if some way existed to do that.

Now, I know you're going to bring up the claim that your job requires you to acknowledge a trans person's identity. That isn't a legal burden, there is no law on the books in any state that requires you to do that. Your employer may require it if they choose, and you agree to do that if you want to continue being employed, but that's entirely voluntary. The law doesn't require it of you, or anyone.

Now, I've explained this as simply as I know how. If you want to continue this disingenuous argument, then I'll have no choice but to conclude one of two things: either you're being intentionally dishonest, or you're not smart enough to understand what I've explained.

I believe you're smart enough to understand. Which leaves me one option. But, for the moment, I'll assume you're only being disingenuous, not dishonest.

-- A2SG, don't prove me wrong, dude....

Nope you are invalidating their identity because they are identifying as something you objectively know they are not. As you pointed out and I agree they can identify as your child if they want. But you know good and well that they are not your child and you won't support them in their identity because you won't allow them to impose their identity upon you. You do that because you know objectively that they are not your child.

You invalidated their identity.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

First off your comment intimated it isn't a big deal because neither you nor anyone you know has been has been asked or demanded of by transactivists.

And now you are proving the point I've made which is the activists have great power. They are not a marginalized group if they can harass you to the point of compliance or lose your job and leave where you've lived over half your life and the entirety of your children's and grandchildren lives.

I'm sorry I don't fit the narrative, I had no idea how widespread the Trans Revolution has spread and impacted most of the country. I guess I am sheltered on an island in a sea of Red in West Michigan. Thankfully I wont have to worry about any grandkids having to face this.

 

[A2SG]

Nope you are invalidating their identity because they are identifying as something you objectively know they are not. As you pointed out and I agree they can identify as your child if they want. But you know good and well that they are not your child and you won't support them in their identity because you won't allow them to impose their identity upon you. You do that because you know objectively that they are not your child.

You invalidated their identity.

Okay, you are being dishonest.

-- A2SG, thanks for that....

 

[rjs330]

I'm sorry I don't fit the narrative, I had no idea how widespread the Trans Revolution has spread and impacted most of the country. I guess I am sheltered on an island in a sea of Red in West Michigan. Thankfully I wont have to worry about any grandkids having to face this.

Hey that's okay. It's just that you sounded a lot like so many on the left with if it didn't affect them personally it wasn't any big deal. If it doesn't affect you what do you care? That kind of thing. So that's why I said what I said.

Yeah so many kids are affected ed by this anymore. There's been a 400% increase and high in places of trans identifying kids.

 

[rjs330]

Okay, you are being dishonest.

-- A2SG, thanks for that....

Nope you are in denial. And here... We ... Go.

 

[A2SG]

Nope you are in denial. And here... We ... Go.

I explained my position. Instead of addressing the points I made, you simply repeated the same argument.

You continue to conflate objective criteria with subjective criteria, and claim I'm doing the same. I've clearly stated why and how I'm not doing that.

If someone else wants to address this, and can show me how I'm doing what you claim I'm doing, I'll listen. Heck, if you can show me how I'm invalidating someone's identity after I've clearly showed how I haven't, I'll listen. Here's a hint: don't just continue to claim I'm doing it, because that's false.

But so long as you continue the dishonesty you have been, I'll take you as seriously as your arguments require.

-- A2SG, and continue to reevaluate my impressions of you.....