SC Senate Passes Bill Banning Affirmative Care For Minors

[KCfromNC]

Lol oh...I didn't think that was a statement anyone would contest.

Hmm, an attempt to make me think I'm crazy for asking a simple question about the reality of the situation. Seems like a textbook definition of gaslighting.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, for the sake of honesty and consistency, Gender Dysphoria seems to be unique in that it's one of the few where researchers and clinicians have seemingly been content (or pretend to be content) to throw in the towel and say "well, placation is what makes the patient feel the best...so no need for further research"

Despite this quote of no one in particular, it seems that actual researchers are doing actual research in the area, e.g. : https://www.mayo.edu/research/clinical-trials/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Despite this quote of no one in particular, it seems that actual researchers are doing actual research in the area, e.g. : https://www.mayo.edu/research/clinical-trials/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria

But those studies & research efforts listed don't seem to be in the theme of "addressing the underlying issues", "seeing what causes it in the first place" or acknowledging that dysphoria itself is even a "problem", and are more in the theme of "how can we stave off side effects from the applied approach we've already determined to be the best one"

...which is not the way other psychiatric/emotional issues are typically addressed and researched in other facets. (or any other area of medicine for that matter)


To use an exaggerated example for effect...

If people who felt they were dolphins were getting procedures done to get artificial fins put on. It'd be like the researchers saying "well we know the fin-grafting procedure is the best way, so let's research what are the best ways to reduce the risk of infections and complications post-op"

It's related research, but none of it is questioning the underlying premise.

Like the studies listed in your link:
Evaluating mitigating approaches for cardiovascular risks with the use of cross-sex hormones
Tracking bone density loss
How to best maintain fertility and reproductive health while on affirming hormones
Best ways to interpret lab values for kidney function in people receiving the hormones

None of these are challenging the underlying premise of "affirmation is the best approach" or allowing for "hey maybe there's a psychiatric/pharmaceutical approach that could be discovered", they're merely making a concession to that premise, and then trying to build upon it.

 

[rjs330]

If a “medical condition” is discovered in childhood, why would we delay treatment.

Do all medical conditions need immediate treatment?
Do we make sure child actually has a particular medical condition before we treat them? Or do we treat them without making sure you are reeating them for the correct issue?
Do we immediately treat them with drugs without verifying efficacy and dangerous side effects first? Or do we just give them the drugs without verifying that they actually work and the side effects aren't too detrimental?

Tell me what is the best way to go?

Are there transgender people who are younger than 18?

I think that is what therapy is for. Just wonder if you have any idea how many there are?

That is what the State is saying, “You are only eligible for treatment of this ‘condition’ after you turn 18 years of age, you’re allowed to have this condition if you are younger than 18 but aren’t allowed to ‘get treated’ for it.”

Based upon best practices and the research. We are are allowed to do a lot of things at 18 that we can't to under 18. Why is that such a big deal? Why don't we allow kids to smoke?

This is so that we don’t “make mistakes” and ruin kids’ lives.

Now you get it. That's exactly why. That doesn't make any sense to you? It makes sense to rhe experts in other countries who have actually researched rhe issues.

Transgender people need therapy to “accept reality”, nothing more.
Partly because some people think that God wouldn’t want children to get medical care, the same God who said that a tiny bit of faith is all that is needed to move a mountain.

No people who THINK they are transgender need therapy. Maybe a very tiny minority of those who think that way actually DO have dysphoria. Why would you desire to give kids harmful drugs when 99.9% of them.are not actually trans. I guess we should just castrate all the men because a certain percentage of them will be child molesters.

Partly because some people think that God wouldn’t want children to get medical care, the same God who said that a tiny bit of faith is all that is needed to move a mountain.

That's an awfully broad statement. Cause I can think of an aweful lot of people who believe in God get medical care for their kids. I'm one of them. But I want my kid to get the CORRECT medical care for the CORRECT problem. What i dont want is to be handed a pill that says it will fix everything and only ends up damaging my child because they didnt really have the condition. I expect better than that. Your Christian bashing doesn't quite fly right. It's too full of holes.

 

[rjs330]

If you're just going to ignore what I wrote I might as well just restate it :

They're both treatments used on children which might not have a two decade long proven track record, are not 100% certain to work, and might potentially have side effects. So the comparison seems apt, given that those were excuses previously brought up to ban one of the two.

Plus the similarity you brought up that people are encouraged to ask their doctor about both of them.

What you wrote doesn't mean your comparison is a valid one. Just cause you wrote something doesn't make it valid. Just admit it dude, it was a bad comparison. I've shown you why.

One treatment is necessary the other is not. One illness is death causing the other is not. It's a bad comparison. That's it. Hold onto it if you want but everyone knows it's not remotely the same and it's a bad comparison. Well, everyone but you. Simply repeating yourself doesn't help make it a good one.

Transgenderism isn't the same thing as cancer. It doesn't have the same affects. It doesn't cause the same results and the medicines do not do the same things. As I said the fact that they are both treatments is the only similarity between the two.

You might as well have said gall bladder sugery and brain surgery are similar because they are both surgeries.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree, was an interpretation of (I can't stand the LGBTQ agenda." That makes me wonder who has a national LGBTQ agenda that a united group or lobby that has specific demands agreed upon in a national consensus

I don't know about national consensus....but I've seen multiple activists referring to their gay agenda.

other than the right to be treated equally.

In what ways aren't they being treated equally?

So I retract that statement, it was exaggerated. Having said that, have you spoken with anyone who has the opinion that transgenders are freaks or they would prefer not to see one?

It's certainly possible I have...I've never heard anyone say that though.

I don't think that secularism needs to be against the church's rules.

Ok.

Christianity and humanism are almost the same.

Secular humanism tends to be more incoherent imo....but again, that's just my opinion.

They both believe in helping others, basically feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and clothing the naked. They have different ways of going about these using humanitarian values. One difference is Christians are more likely to support things like going on an offensive war, approving of the death penalty, or regulating women's reproductive rights.

Ok.

The cool thing about democracy is that if you can get enough Christians to agree on a Christian value-based law, you can get it passed provided it doesn't violate the Constitution.

Right.

Don't both sides do this?

Absolutely. I've simply noticed it from one side a lot more than the other.

Just as an experiment... I went through the posts on this thread to see when it first pops up and who does it. To my surprise, it's not until post #61 that I really saw any attacks on character.

Or you are harming them with shame and condemnation. If we want to make sins into law, how much time should an adulterer get?

An accusation of "harm" lobbed at those who disagree with you.

To be sure, there were plenty of other bad posts...the main problem being posters attacking straw men (points no one made) in order to seem as if they're engaging honestly.

Have you seen one of those protests where both sides are there like Abortion or the death penalty, even stem cell research can cause a big mess.

Right, absolutely. I recall plenty of pro-abortion people being called murderers. I'm certainly not defending that.

I agree but words can also intimidate, threaten, and command.

Well threats are illegal. They have to meet a certain criteria of realistic danger....but threats are illegal.

As for the rest...these are the risks of engaging in discussion or debate. It's certainly possible that someone's opinions are scary to you...and if that's the case, you shouldn't engage in discussion. The reality is that everyone disagrees with you on something....and if that's something you can't deal with, the solution is to not engage in discussion, it should never be silencing anyone who disagrees with you.

That helps no one.

I understand we shouldn't have to but when is it really appropriate to abandon basic decency?

If you're referring to those cases when someone calls a transgender person a freak...it's probably because of the harm they believe is happening to children.

People are capable of seeing where this is going....logically. When the law being debated was "trans people getting special privileges to use whatever restroom they like"....a group of people opposed to the laws said it would result in women being sexually harassed and assaulted in restrooms. Guess what? That's exactly what happened and keeps happening. That's the topic of several Planet Fitness threads. It's not magic...nobody can see into the future...it's just common sense.

If you are talking about pronouns, I no we don't have to use them by law but what's the harm in calling someone by the pronoun they wish to be called.

If you're asking me personally? I don't like being asked to lie. If someone who was 5'2" and 350lbs....I can lie to them if they ask me if I think they're healthy, and they tell me beforehand that they want to be lied to. After all, they seem to acknowledge the truth and understand that I'm being asked to lie. I don't think I'd be comfortable doing so....I think it's a bad thing if they start believing their own lies and I'm sitting there lying to them.

This doesn't appear to be what's happening with trans people though. They appear to genuinely believe they are a woman even though they are clearly a man. If they understand they aren't really a woman....why are they asking me to lie about it? If they don't see it as a big deal....why am I being asked to lie about it?

I used to think it was a small, unimportant request...but then I saw otherwise smart people abandon reality. I saw them arguing that men should be allowed in women's prisons, that men should be allowed in women's sports, that children should be given experimental drugs as part of a treatment that the FDA did not approve of. Why? I think it's at least in part because they started referring to men as "she" and "her" and in their minds....they stopped realizing that this was all a lie they agreed to play along with.

If they had not buckled and submitted to these demands that they lie....they probably wouldn't have conceded so many other demands that were far more ridiculous.

If someone has on makeup and a dress, I don't think it would be hard to remember they prefer to be called "she."

The mistake you're making is thinking that the makeup and dress are somehow related.

According to the trans activists, if this guy claims to be a woman and uses the pronouns "she/her", then that's 100% valid....and not something anyone should question.

People don't have a duty to do this but how is it harmful? You said yourself that

I don't think it's harmful. It's certainly uncomfortable for some people (like myself) but it isn't harmful to anyone.

Unless your place of business has a policy where people can be fired for not using someone's preferred pronouns....it's not harmful.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If a “medical condition” is discovered in childhood, why would we delay treatment.

1. Because the medical condition is very difficult to diagnose and if left untreated, resolves itself by early adulthood without any detrimental effects to the child roughly 85% of the time.

2. The treatment has all sorts of long term permanent effects such as sterilization....which is a lifelong consequence for a "medical condition" that has no dangerous or harmful effects.

This means that statistically...supposed "trans children" undergo no harm by waiting until adulthood for treatment.

Are there transgender people who are younger than 18?

Hard to say when people cannot even pin down exactly what "transgender" means.

That is what the State is saying, “You are only eligible for treatment of this ‘condition’ after you turn 18 years of age, you’re allowed to have this condition if you are younger than 18 but aren’t allowed to ‘get treated’ for it.”

Indeed. Once they reach adulthood (legally) they are free to make these choices for themselves. These aren't treatments designed to save lives....these are aesthetic choices like plastic surgery, a nose job, or a tattoo.

This is so that we don’t “make mistakes” and ruin kids’ lives.

Right. The treatments have turned out to be pretty harmful. The effects appear to be permanent. Many "trans youth" talk about the "point of no return"....a point which despite not liking the effects the treatments have had, they feel as if they must continue because too much damage has been done to change their minds. One sad one in particular was clearly a little girl who appeared to be 15 or 16....and had begun going bald. Full blown male pattern baldness. The front and center of her hair had fallen out completely. Her voice had also deepened...not to the point of sounding very manly, but all femininity had disappeared like her hair. She was sobbing in her video because she felt ugly...and hated her new manly appearance and sound....and wished she had never began transitioning. She doubted she ever really was transgender to begin with. She had been on puberty blockers a short while and HRT only a few weeks....and felt as if she had to continue because she couldn't be a pretty girl anymore. That option was forever gone.

These mistakes can be avoided if we wait until the person is an adult and has a more mature and realistic understanding of what exactly to expect from these treatments. Any woman expecting to become Brad Pitt and cruise through life on a magic carpet of male privilege should speak to other trans men and ask them about it. They may learn its not all its cracked up to be.

Transgender people need therapy to “accept reality”, nothing more.

If they want more after adulthood, they can have it. What's the point of rushing children through this?

Partly because some people think that God wouldn’t want children to get medical care

I don't think a 14yo girl should get a "boob job" just because she isn't happy with the course of nature so far. I don't think anyone should encourage her to do so either. There's no harm in her waiting until she's 18yo.

These are aesthetic choices....not cancer treatments.

 

[rturner76]

I don't know about national consensus....but I've seen multiple activists referring to their gay agenda.

What I'm wondering is what that agenda is specifically. the only "agenda" I have been exposed to is their desire to be treated as equals

In what ways aren't they being treated equally?

I think it is the restroom issue that is being discussed when equality is being spoken of. Also, it's not legal but socially, I understand that they often face discrimination at work.

It's certainly possible I have...I've never heard anyone say that though.

I have seen people on this forum express those kinds of opinions fairly often. Mostly by Evangelicals and my fellow Catholics.

Secular humanism tends to be more incoherent imo....but again, that's just my opinion.

I agree because I am not aware of any universally accepted book of agreed-upon beliefs. IMO, Jesus was the first Humanist with his agenda of non-violence and universal forgiveness. I think that runs parallel with Humanism though specific dos and don'ts I'm sure vary.

An accusation of "harm" lobbed at those who disagree with you.

It's much better now but I remember guys going out "gay bashing" and some men having a special hatred for those who live an "alternative lifestyle. I also think things like public ridicule can be harmful. Having a different opinion than someone else and expressing it does no harm until one uses that differing opinion to guide their hiring practices or otherwise discriminate.

Well threats are illegal. They have to meet a certain criteria of realistic danger....but threats are illegal.

As for the rest...these are the risks of engaging in discussion or debate. It's certainly possible that someone's opinions are scary to you...and if that's the case, you shouldn't engage in discussion. The reality is that everyone disagrees with you on something....and if that's something you can't deal with, the solution is to not engage in discussion, it should never be silencing anyone who disagrees with you.

That helps no one.

I agree, but I am thinking more of situations where someone is expressing an unsolicited opinion that is demeaning.

If you're referring to those cases when someone calls a transgender person a freak...it's probably because of the harm they believe is happening to children.

People are capable of seeing where this is going....logically. When the law being debated was "trans people getting special privileges to use whatever restroom they like"....a group of people opposed to the laws said it would result in women being sexually harassed and assaulted in restrooms. Guess what? That's exactly what happened and keeps happening. That's the topic of several Planet Fitness threads. It's not magic...nobody can see into the future...it's just common sense.

I haven't read all of the statistics and even then I don't know how accurate they would be BUT, I'm not completely convinced that the instances of abuse in women's restrooms have increased significantly. If someone is an abuser, from what I understand, it's a certain percentage of people from every walk of life. I don't agree with a big burley dude claims to be a woman and does not present themselves as a woman. Even before this was an issue dudes were sticking cameras in public toilets and got up to all kinds of mischief. There is "sex" and there is "gender." I think that in order to keep trans people out of the lady's room, they should clarify that the criteria for using a restroom is based on sex alone. I think the big deal they make is not just because they want to relieve themselves in close proximity to women but they more like don't want to go to the men's with a dress on.

I think it's a bad thing if they start believing their own lies and I'm sitting there lying to them.

That's where I recommend doing a study on the psychology of gender dysphoria. It's actually a medical issue even though it's mental health insurance will pay for the treatment of it and insurance companies don't pay for anything that's not considered medical. Because of the dysphoria, they don't think they are lying

This doesn't appear to be what's happening with trans people though. They appear to genuinely believe they are a woman even though they are clearly a man. If they understand they aren't really a woman....why are they asking me to lie about it? If they don't see it as a big deal....why am I being asked to lie about it?

That's the thing, like you said, they genuinely believe they are a woman and they would feel like they are lying to themselves to deny that's their "true" identity.

I used to think it was a small, unimportant request...but then I saw otherwise smart people abandon reality. I saw them arguing that men should be allowed in women's prisons, that men should be allowed in women's sports, that children should be given experimental drugs as part of a treatment that the FDA did not approve of. Why? I think it's at least in part because they started referring to men as "she" and "her" and in their minds....they stopped realizing that this was all a lie they agreed to play along with.

If they had not buckled and submitted to these demands that they lie....they probably wouldn't have conceded so many other demands that were far more ridiculous.

I think some of it depends on where they are surgically. I must admit, as progressive as I am, I really don't like the sports thing.

The mistake you're making is thinking that the makeup and dress are somehow related.

According to the trans activists, if this guy claims to be a woman and uses the pronouns "she/her", then that's 100% valid....and not something anyone should question.

That's where I believe they are wrong. For the trans people I have known, if they wanted to look like a man, they would have just kept their male identity. That notion does open up a loophole where straight men can just lie and say they are a woman and if they still have a penis and present themselves as a male, there is no reason they should go to the ladies but we both know that every movement or opinion has its extremists.

I don't think it's harmful. It's certainly uncomfortable for some people (like myself) but it isn't harmful to anyone.

Unless your place of business has a policy where people can be fired for not using someone's preferred pronouns....it's not harmful.

Agreed, I choose to use their preferred pronoun (which hasn't come up very often in my experience). It does bring up a valid question....Are we obligated to do that by law? Would it be considered harassment if someone doesn't? Personally, I would just give them the common courtesy of using their preferred pronoun. I don't feel harmed by it and I'm sure they appreciate it. I don't think people are inherently in the wrong for not doing it but my personality is designed in a way that I feel more uncomfortable antagonizing someone.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think that secularism needs to be against the church's rules. Christianity and humanism are almost the same. They both believe in helping others, basically feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and clothing the naked. They have different ways of going about these using humanitarian values. One difference is Christians are more likely to support things like going on an offensive war, approving of the death penalty, or regulating women's reproductive rights.

I think the baseline standard for that was something became known as "The Lemon Test", in reference to a constitutional law ruling from the SCOTUS case from the 70's "Lemon v Kurtzman".

The key part was that in order for a law to pass 1st amendment muster (with respect to the establishment clause), a law must be able to serve a purpose that's both secular and compelling.

So for instance, a law that says that you can't dump toxic sludge in the water supply, being advanced because the legislator said "God says we should treat are neighbors well, and poisoning them like that is against God's will" would still be okay, because one could just as easily make several secular arguments against dumping toxic sludge that are compelling.

Laws restricting same sex marriage on the other hand, well, that would be a different story. As most of the arguments against it are religious ones, and the only secular arguments against it are pretty superficial and not compelling. (IE: a non-religious person saying "I think it's icky when two dudes kiss" isn't compelling)


But the flip side of that precedent is the one that often gets overlooked. And whenever there's a public debate over a hot issue where most of the Christians are on one side, and the non-religious on the other... people want to act as if the latter has carte blanche and immediately has the upper hand by default simply because their position doesn't stem from religion. That's not how it's supposed to work either.

I don't know that secular laws should be able to bypass the "compelling" requirement simply because the majority of opponents to it happen to be Christian. I could come up with the dumbest law proposal ever, if the only arguments against it happen to be Christian-based ones, that doesn't give said proposal de facto validation or credibility.

And I think that's what's happening in a lot of regards with the debates over transgender topics. Because the majority of opponents to certain aspects happen to be Christian, a lot of people operate under the premise that any criticism or pushback is constitutionally invalid (because they attempt to tie every criticism to a religious viewpoint to disqualify it), which then leads to them making some rather uncompelling arguments for their position.

A "legislative indolence" of sorts, where because all of their opponents arguments are being cast as illegitimate, they often don't have to have to come up with any good compelling arguments of their own. (and often get rather hot under the collar when you press them for one)

They have their argument of "you can use religion to legislate how other people live" (which is valid) that they're accustomed to trotting out at the first sign of pushback.

However, you take that argument away from them, and present things like studies showing that transgender athletes retain a huge percentage of their physical advantage even after being on hormone therapy for 2 years, or citing the long term side effects of cross-sex hormone therapy in general... they seem to immediately fallback on an appeal to emotion argument like "oh yeah?!? is SPortsBalL so iMporTanT that you get to make someone feel bad?", before eventually just giving up altogether and opting for the much less creative retort of "Bigot!" or "Transphobe!", or even worse, the emotional blackmail response of "would you rather have an alive daughter or a dead son?"

 

[rturner76]

But the flip side of that precedent is the one that often gets overlooked. And whenever there's a public debate over a hot issue where most of the Christians are on one side, and the non-religious on the other... people want to act as if the latter has carte blanche and immediately has the upper hand by default simply because their position doesn't stem from religion. That's not how it's supposed to work either.

I think that what is most important is what does the majority have to say?

I don't know that secular laws should be able to bypass the "compelling" requirement simply because the majority of opponents to it happen to be Christian. I could come up with the dumbest law proposal ever, if the only arguments against it happen to be Christian-based ones, that doesn't give said proposal de facto validation or credibility.

An argument that is truly compelling likely will be shared by the majority. The problem with passing laws based on Christian values and not the majority's values is that we can end up with the minority ruling the majority. As a democracy, that is the opposite of of it.

And I think that's what's happening in a lot of regards with the debates over transgender topics. Because the majority of opponents to certain aspects happen to be Christian, a lot of people operate under the premise that any criticism or pushback is constitutionally invalid (because they attempt to tie every criticism to a religious viewpoint to disqualify it), which then leads to them making some rather uncompelling arguments for their position

I think what disqualifies a Christianity-based law, in general, is that it is often not shared by the majority of citizens. I'm a Christian and I don't like to see that stuff going on, so I don't participate in the acts of sodomy or dressing like a woman. I am entitled to have that opinion. If it's not shared by the majority however, that opinion will get voted down. What we are really talking about is people's personal moral compass but a Christian viewpoint is not shared by the majority and/or it is unconstitutional, it is invalid in a legal sense.

A "legislative indolence" of sorts, where because all of their opponents arguments are being cast as illegitimate, they often don't have to have to come up with any good compelling arguments of their own. (and often get rather hot under the collar when you press them for one)

I don't think they are cast as illegitimate until they try to make a law that the majority doesn't agree with. For example, murder, assault, and rape are agreed upon as being illegal one, because it's unconstitutional and two, the majority agrees on that set of morals whether Christian or secular.

They have their argument of "you can use religion to legislate how other people live" (which is valid) that they're accustomed to trotting out at the first sign of pushback

Like you said, it's valid.

However, you take that argument away from them, and present things like studies showing that transgender athletes retain a huge percentage of their physical advantage even after being on hormone therapy for 2 years, or citing the long term side effects of cross-sex hormone therapy in general... they seem to immediately fallback on an appeal to emotion argument like "oh yeah?!? is SPortsBalL so iMporTanT that you get to make someone feel bad?", before eventually just giving up altogether and opting for the much less creative retort of "Bigot!" or "Transphobe!", or even worse, the emotional blackmail response of "would you rather have an alive daughter or a dead son?"

It is really up to the individual to choose whether it is more important to them to not take medication because of the side effects, or if they are willing to deal with the side effects because they believe their mental health and happiness is more important to them. Unless it is patently deadly to take hormones (and it's different for everybody how much side effects are cause damage. For example, at some point, I stopped producing testosterone so I take a T-shot every two weeks knowing there is a risk of getting an enlarged heart. I have a few things going on in my abdomen so I get a full organ ultrasound at regular intervals. That way any damage being done to my system can be monitored and my medication should be adjusted accordingly. A doctor is responsible to go through a patient's medical history and they should be vigilant to observe, blood test, and.or scan them regularly. It may not be practical for everyone and a doctor should should be monitoring their patient. I think they take the risk of side effects believing they can trust their doctor to do that.

 

[rjs330]

think that what is most important is what does the majority have to say?

I don't always by the "what does the majority say?" The majority could be extremely misinformed. Just cause the majority thinks this or that doesn't mean they are correct. I think you know this.

The problem with passing laws based on Christian values and not the majority's values is that we can end up with the minority ruling the majority. As a democracy, that is the opposite of of it.

I don't think we have any laws that are based soley on Christian values. Christians have to convince people their arguments are valid as well. Another question that has to be asked is are Christians really the minority here? Rhe majority of Ameticans identify as Christian. So in your scenario the majority IS ruling the minority as you think it should be.

think what disqualifies a Christianity-based law, in general, is that it is often not shared by the majority of citizens. I'm a Christian and I don't like to see that stuff going on, so I don't participate in the acts of sodomy or dressing like a woman. I am entitled to have that opinion. If it's not shared by the majority however, that opinion will get voted down. What we are really talking about is people's personal moral compass but a Christian viewpoint is not shared by the majority and/or it is unconstitutional, it is invalid in a legal sense.

I'm still not sure what you think is a Christian based law you are concerned about?

is really up to the individual to choose whether it is more important to them to not take medication because of the side effects, or if they are willing to deal with the side effects because they believe their mental health and happiness is more important to them. Unless

You forgot the caveat "unless they are not an adult." Adults make all kinds of harmful decisions and they bear the responsibility subtlety for those. The adults should be doing what the can to keep.the kids from making those harmful decisions because they are not mentally or emotionally prepared for them. Why you keep.missing this is beyond me.

Should a child be sentenced to jail for the same things an adult would be?

The WPATH files proved that neither the kids nor the parents understood consequences of medicalization. Why do you keep ignoring these things?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hmm, an attempt to make me think I'm crazy for asking a simple question about the reality of the situation. Seems like a textbook definition of gaslighting.

Look....if you want a statement from another legislator on the matter....say so.

I'm sure I can dig another one up.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I'm wondering is what that agenda is specifically. the only "agenda" I have been exposed to is their desire to be treated as equals

Well there's an example...quite literally described by Disney execs as an agenda.

I think we can agree this hasn't gone well for Disney. The creative spaces like movies, TV, and games have failed and failed pretty badly because of the same reasons these old Kirk Cameron christian movies failed....

Nobody wants to be preached to about some set of morals that aren't their own.

I think it is the restroom issue that is being discussed when equality is being spoken of.

Again, you'll need to explain what you mean by "equality" here. As far as I know, trans people had the exact same rights as everyone else. What they advocated for....what the trans bathroom bills proposed....were rights that nobody had.

I have seen people on this forum express those kinds of opinions fairly often.

I believe you...but I'm limited to atheist areas of the forum.

I agree because I am not aware of any universally accepted book of agreed-upon beliefs. IMO, Jesus was the first Humanist with his agenda of non-violence and universal forgiveness.

Ok.

It's much better now but I remember guys going out "gay bashing" and some men having a special hatred for those who live an "alternative lifestyle.

People have been attacked for all sorts of reasons beyond their control. While I'm sure people are beaten up for being gay in some places...in others they're beaten up for being black, or white, or Jewish, etc. I'm not certain this merits any special attention and I certainly don't have any idea of a solution.

I also think things like public ridicule can be harmful. Having a different opinion than someone else and expressing it does no harm until one uses that differing opinion to guide their hiring practices or otherwise discriminate.

Those are behaviors at that point though...not merely words.

I agree, but I am thinking more of situations where someone is expressing an unsolicited opinion that is demeaning.

I'm of the belief that it is the opinions that few people agree with that need the most protections.

If you'll indulge me for a moment, let's imagine two guys on Twitter/X....

Guy #1. Everything he says is extremely popular. He never says anything controversial, never expresses an idea that isn't mainstream, and no one is ever shocked by what he writes. In fact, his opinions and beliefs are so common and unremarkable (except how remarkably agreeable they are) that one can even predict his views before he states them.

Guy #2. Everything he says is very unpopular. He is just as honest as guy #1....but he's often completely alone in his views, and finds them constantly under attack from others like Guy #1. Some people are greatly offended by this views....some think he's deliberately confrontational. None of this matters to him though....and he continues sharing his views, despite their extreme unpopularity. We cannot predict what he might say....but we can probably predict what he won't say.

Of these two men....we really only need to concern ourselves with protecting the speech of Guy #2, right? Guy #1 isn't going to find his speech under attack....because he says what everyone else says. Guy #2 however, is alone in his views...and if he's silenced, we will notice.

I haven't read all of the statistics and even then I don't know how accurate they would be BUT, I'm not completely convinced that the instances of abuse in women's restrooms have increased significantly.

Let's assume they haven't increased significantly. Does it matter? I'm sure that's of little comfort to the women who have been victimized. It didn't have to happen at all...and had these legal issues not created these opportunities, they may not have happened.

If someone is an abuser, from what I understand, it's a certain percentage of people from every walk of life. I don't agree with a big burley dude claims to be a woman and does not present themselves as a woman.

Here's the issue though....you can't write the laws and policies that way. "Trans" is just a claim someone makes about how they "feel inside". It's not a costume requirement. There's no checklist of "trans". If the guy in that picture enters a women's restroom behind your daughter...who is to say that person isn't trans? As much as your side likes to make jokes about "checking genitalia" there's no way to check anyone's feelings. Trans is a claim someone has to accept or reject on faith.

Even before this was an issue dudes were sticking cameras in public toilets and got up to all kinds of mischief.

True...and they were much easier to catch, because one could safely assume they were up to something they shouldn't be doing merely by being in the women's restroom. Now, that person can in many cases simply claim to be a woman.

There is "sex" and there is "gender."

I'm certain about the first, and far less convinced about the second.

I think that in order to keep trans people out of the lady's room, they should clarify that the criteria for using a restroom is based on sex alone. I think the big deal they make is not just because they want to relieve themselves in close proximity to women but they more like don't60s want to go to the men's with a dress on.

I think the big deal comes down to dating specifically and "the deception" generally. Many trans people seem to be....let's say "turned on" by the idea of successfully "passing" as the opposite sex. Moreover, since it's extremely difficult for them to find romantic partners and long term relationships (not my opinion, but a fact) many of them hold the belief that they aren't obligated to disclose their actual sex on a first date. They think that perhaps if they can get their potential partner to fall for them romantically...it will be easier to convince them to continue their relationship once they learn the truth. I would imagine that the whole deception falls apart rather quickly if they keep using the appropriate restroom.

That's where I recommend doing a study on the psychology of gender dysphoria.

Trans activists have rejected the idea that one must experience gender dysphoria to be considered "trans".

Now, you may be thinking to yourself "That's not what I'm defending though"....and I understand that perhaps whenever you decided your position on this issue...it was about pronouns and restrooms. You believed you were helping people experiencing a genuine problem....and back then you didn't expect it to follow this path that involves prisons and women's sports, and early childhood education and medical treatment.

I suggest you take a closer look. This is very quickly changing and soon it won't be about a "medical condition" at all. In fact, it will be called bigoted to insist trans people must be experiencing a psychological problem at all. Trans is just a claim someone makes about how they feel...and the activists already consider a wide range of sexual fetishes to be a part of the "trans community". Do you remember Lia Thomas? The swimmer that broke all the women's swimming records? Not a trans person the way you think. Lia grows his hair long, wears women's clothes in competition, and takes certain drugs to compete as a woman....but really isn't trans. Lia is an exhibitionist who likes to expose himself to women in the locker room. Lia has a deep hatred of women and really enjoys the idea of them suffering from his constant harassment and inability to compete with him. Lia was quietly banned from swimming when this all came out (and much more) because collegiate swimming was pretty embarrassed by the way this person took advantage of the rules to humiliate and harass the female swimmers. Lia was put on a pedestal by the left wing media and given medals and awards....but in reality, the sports organizations just elevated a pervert who hated women and enjoyed exposing himself to them while their complaints were ignored.

Did you know this?

That's the thing, like you said, they genuinely believe they are a woman and they would feel like they are lying to themselves to deny that's their "true" identity.

Well fortunately for them....I'm not trying to control their speech. They can use whatever goofy pronouns they choose and claim to be a fairy princess. I simply don't think it's right or good to ask me to play along.

I think some of it depends on where they are surgically. I must admit, as progressive as I am, I really don't like the sports thing.

I know. I bet you aren't really a fan of the prison thing either. Once you conceded to the pronouns and restrooms though...it becomes a bit more difficult to draw a line and say "enough is enough". That's what the pronouns are really about imo. Once you start speaking that way...you begin thinking about it that way.

Agreed, I choose to use their preferred pronoun (which hasn't come up very often in my experience).

And I wouldn't stop you nor try to prevent you from doing so. If it feels right to you...I don't judge. It doesn't even bother me that some people think I'm a immoral of bad person for not using preferred pronouns. I simply don't want end up in a situation where I'm required to do so.

It does bring up a valid question....Are we obligated to do that by law?

We definitely shouldn't be.

Consider all the awful things you can say to a cop. I'm sure many of these things hurt their feelings. I don't think people should taunt or harass police. Would I ever make such insults or hateful comments a crime? No...not if I were dictator of the world.

Would it be considered harassment if someone doesn't?

I suppose it could be. Before you think I'm making all that up about Lia Thomas....

Lia Thomas Suspected To Have Autogynephilia, An Abnormal Sexual Desire That Results In Men Being Aroused By Themselves Pretending To Be Women

Focusing on women and celebrating what makes them so unique, Evie Magazine helps women seek truth and find beauty...the kind that really matters.

www.eviemagazine.com

That's one of the tamer stories I've found. A person who really shouldn't be allowed in the women's sports world or even just restrooms.

 

[rjs330]

That's the thing, like you said, they genuinely believe they are a woman and they would feel like they are lying to themselves to deny that's their "true" identity.

Do they? How do you know? How does anyone know? We have to take it by faith that they do. How exactly is that determined? How does any of us know they really honestly feel they ARE a woman. Because they say so?

Are some who say they are trans actually not trans?

You said something about this dude that looks like a dude not go into the female bathroom. Why not? If they honestly believe they are a woman why should.they be stopped?

 

[KCfromNC]

But those studies & research efforts listed don't seem to be in the theme of "addressing the underlying issues", "seeing what causes it in the first place" or acknowledging that dysphoria itself is even a "problem", and are more in the theme of "how can we stave off side effects from the applied approach we've already determined to be the best one"

I'm sure that the professionals in the field will be disappointed that you think they're doing their job incorrectly.

Anyway, given the the post from yesterday claimed there wasn't any research at all, it is hard to believe this claim is based on a thorough review of the entirety of the research performed since then.

 

[KCfromNC]

What you wrote doesn't mean your comparison is a valid one. Just cause you wrote something doesn't make it valid. Just admit it dude, it was a bad comparison. I've shown you why.

No, you've just repeatedly hand-waved away the ways they are similar - which in this case were also actual reasons provided by previous posts why one of the two treatment should be made illegal. So why shouldn't both?

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm sure I can dig another one up.

I guess we'll have to take it on faith.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It is really up to the individual to choose whether it is more important to them to not take medication because of the side effects, or if they are willing to deal with the side effects because they believe their mental health and happiness is more important to them.

I think the major point of contention there is with regards to minors. If someone's 20 years old, do what you want as long as you're not infringing on anyone else.

I don't think I'm saying anything out of sorts when I suggest that people in that 14-18 age range aren't necessarily adept at weighing out long term consequences of actions (which is why we restrict their actions in other realms) -- they're not thinking about things like bone density, or increased risk of heart attacks and cancer they may have when they turn 40. Me & my friends certainly didn't when we were that age, that's why we thought it was cool to smoke.

That's what adults are supposed to be for.

It becomes a challenge when half the adults suggest that the other half of the adults shouldn't be allowed to pump the breaks on some of this stuff.

Imagine if we were talking about a different topic...I'll pick another one that's topical. There are cases of Ozempic prescriptions being written for slightly overweight kids.

More teens are turning to weight loss drugs

The rise in prescriptions follows the approval of Wegovy for kids as young as 12 and updated recommendations for treating childhood obesity from a major medical organization.

www.nbcnews.com

(and the number is increasing)

Now, imagine if you had a situation where half of the adults were trying to say "hold on, wait a minute, first off, your body's not even done changing yet, second, there are some liver risks that could creep up 20 years down the road from taking this stuff, thirdly, that kind of stuff should be reserved for the most extreme cases"

Meanwhile, the other half of the adults brands the first half as "insensitive" for not just going along with it, and suggests "it's about what makes the teen the most happy, you have no right to stand in the way of that and let them decide what's best for them if this will improve their quality of life".


The problem with that? well, the NBC article kind of shows it.

Teens have a rather myopic & short-sighted view of "quality of life". "Whatever makes me look the best in the eyes of my peers or let's me fit in with this peer group is the thing that's most important, everything beyond that doesn't matter"

A 16 year old girl (like the one in the picture from the NBC link, in that age range where they're more prone to body image issues) - who's far from being "obese", will often times gladly opt for whatever "caution to the wind" approach that'll make them thinner as quickly as possible without much consideration for long term effects, and without any consideration for the reality that the kind of transformation shown above (for a person with an under 21 metabolism) could be achieved through other safer means...it may just take a little extra self-control & 6-12 months instead of 6-12 weeks.


What's odd is that we actually acknowledge some of these issues (and put pragmatism over feelings) with regards to certain kinds of adults, but then try to placate kids. Fun fact: The majority (an estimated 70%) of bodybuilders suffer from a body dysmorphia, where they don't think their body is right for them, and often times take steroids in order to get bigger. We, as a society, don't simply say "Well, taking steroids to get 24-inch arms is what makes them feel better about their appearance, and it's all about what gives them the best quality of life and confidence"...no, we all pretty much universally acknowledge that it's an unhealthy thing to do and seek to legislate against it in the name of "saving people from themselves".

And if it was a high school aged guy wanting to take steroids to get big muscles, there would certainly be people pumping the brakes that on that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm sure that the professionals in the field will be disappointed that you think they're doing their job incorrectly.

Anyway, given the the post from yesterday claimed there wasn't any research at all, it is hard to believe this claim is based on a thorough review of the entirety of the research performed since then.

Merely being a "professional in the field" doesn't make someone immune from biases, or taking some marching orders from the institutions that provide their funding.

But, to the topic at hand, my original assertion is still valid...they don't appear to be doing any serious studying of any approach that's an alternative to affirmation. The studies seem to be centered around how to optimize the affirmation approach.

I'll use a scientific analogy.

We have a climate issue -- which I'm sure you'd agree with, yes?

If virtually all of the research being done was in the theme of
"well, we all know fossil fuels are the preferred way to get energy, we've already decided that, so lets do these studies that examine the best way to marginally reduce the negative impacts of coal"

and there was virtually no research happening in the theme of
"hmmm... well maybe coal isn't even the best way at all, let's study these other alternative energy sources and renewables"

Would you call that serious research into the issue? Or would you feel like that would be more in the realm of what's known as "academic capture"?


A more direct analogy...

If they had stopped researching treatment premises for schizophrenia beyond when they used to do induced insulin comas, and instead of studying potential pharmaceutical approaches (which led to the development of things like Thioridazine), they just studied ways to optimize and reduce the negative long-term side effects of induced insulin comas, they would've done a disservice to those afflicted people, yes?


For this particular topic, this seems to be the only one I can think of where people have largely conflated "the best approach we know of right now" with the "the best approach now until forever...period". And to suggest that it's even possible that with the right research, there may be a medical intervention that prevents it in the first place gets labelled as "offensive" or "erasing someone's existence".

 

[RileyG]

How can transgendered be treated as equals when they can’t even accept themselves?

It just blows my mind they scream and demand “special privileges.” Quite frankly the rights of REAL women are more important than some few odd men PRETENDING to be women.

I just don’t understand.