TransAge

Ignoring that age and the benefits associated with it is, in fact, a social construct and two articles from questionable sources does not a trend make… So people say they feel an age different than their chronological age. Who cares? Laws are written to chronological age from birth, not perceptive age from beliefs, mindsets, or other constructs. The age a person feels literally has no impact on anybody but said person.

MMXX said:

Society is being programmed to accept the whole trans ball of wax. So if a 50 year old man decides he's a 10 year old girl, he'll probably be able to join the Girl Scouts* or a Girl's junior swim team.

Also the whole idea of blurring or eliminating the social constructs regarding age, is a pedophile's dream come true.

Click to expand...

You are inventing a problem that doesn’t exist. Society isn’t being trained to accept invented trans definitions created by one, single Twitter account from a person nobody has verified even exists and who the people in the articles identify as probably a troll.

A man who says he’s a 10 year old girl won’t “probably” join Scouts or a junior swim team; they can’t. Period. There’s no rule that says they can, no exceptions being floated that says they can, no movement saying they need to make rules that allow it, there’s no science or medicine saying it’s a thing. This is just the latest “won’t somebody think of the children?!” pearl-clutching anti-trans hysteria that somebody has latched onto to justify their own notions. It’s not an actual thing.

Reminds me of the guy a few years ago who changed his name from Paul to "Stefonknee" and abandoned his family to go pretend to be another couple's young daughter. This has always been the logical next step of the "reality can be whatever I want it to be" crowd.

Why it can't be like before, that instead of paying attention to this people, people would laugh and dismiss them.

Tropical Wilds said:

You are inventing a problem that doesn’t exist.

Click to expand...

He is saying that things that were considered crazy 20 years ago are mainstream now. And things that sound crazy now might become mainstream 20 years from now (or sooner). Obama said in 2008 that marriage was between a man and a woman. He'd be called a bigot for that today. And that isn't even 20 years ago.

iarwain said:

He is saying that things that were considered crazy 20 years ago are mainstream now. And things that sound crazy now might become mainstream 20 years from now (or sooner). Obama said in 2008 that marriage was between a man and a woman. He's be called a bigot for that today. And that isn't even 20 years ago.

Click to expand...

LGTBQA+ rights movement has been going on for far longer than 20 years. It was an evolving movement since the 60s and before. There isn’t even the whisper of a “transage” movement. Not the hint of one. It is an invented problem.

Tropical Wilds said:

You are inventing a problem that doesn’t exist. Society isn’t being trained to accept invented trans definitions created by one, single Twitter account from a person nobody has verified even exists and who the people in the articles identify as probably a troll.

A man who says he’s a 10 year old girl won’t “probably” join Scouts or a junior swim team; they can’t. Period. There’s no rule that says they can, no exceptions being floated that says they can, no movement saying they need to make rules that allow it, there’s no science or medicine saying it’s a thing. This is just the latest “won’t somebody think of the children?!” pearl-clutching anti-trans hysteria that somebody has latched onto to justify their own notions. It’s not an actual thing.

Click to expand...

That's is what they said 30 or 40 years ago about gay rights. The people who were gay just wanted to be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital just like biological family members could visit their loved ones. The people who were gay just wanted to be able to declare their loved one on their taxes. That was it - nothing more! Now lets do a Sponge Bob Squarepants' ditti - 40 years later (you have to say it with a French accent) - wah lah, our society has been pressured into accepting everything the LGBTQ+2.... wants or die (having been character assassinated by the mainstream media along with the KWE-ER (Kill Weligiuos Experts - Eventually Rein) Charass Squad. That poor hockey player just wanted to play hockey and he never imagined his religious rights would be trampled on in the game of hockey. Little did he know - BAM. Hit with a brick by you know who.

So how old are you Tropical Winds? 20 something, 30 something? For us who lived through those years - WE REMEMBER! So stop playing the card "Oh that will never happen - you're paranoid". We are not and hopefully I reminded people how it all began one peaceful Sunday afternoon - the beginning of the end of normal civilization.

I’m not going to engage with somebody who resorts to hysteria and quoting SpongeBob memes to try and make their point. Secondly, people advocating for gay rights didn’t start 30 or 40 years ago. The first organization that began taking up gay rights in the US was in 1924 in Chicago. By that time, gay clubs were all over the place and easily found (and frequently raided). During WWII another organization wrote about the shocking and immoral mass executions of people suspected of being gay in Germany and how people needed to acknowledge them as an at-risk group. By the late 40s, Kinsey is writing essays about homosexuality that begin to explore homosexuality as biological and present at-birth and the gender fluidity of physiologically male teenage Britons. Around that time was Harry Hay and his organization. By the 1960s individual states (Illinois?) were repealing anti-sodomy laws. By 30-40 years ago (mid-80s through early 90s) movies were featuring gay persons without stigma and gay marriage efforts were well established and underway to the point where it was frequently becoming a campaign topic.

So no, gay rights was not “unheard of” 30-40 years ago.

Transage, however, is completely unheard of besides one Twitter account the article acknowledges is likely a troll and one guy’s spurious attempt to avoid criminal prosecution. Nobody is advocating it. There are no organizations for it. There are no followers of it. There are no politicians exploring it. There’s no research on it. It is an invented problem that a small number of people are latching onto in an attempt to justify their own prejudice and bias. Like saying gay marriage would lead to people marrying their cars or their pets or gender identity would lead to people declaring themselves royalty and trying to collect the perks. It’s hysterical what-if pearl clutching and nothing more.

There is literally a better chance of aliens landing on Earth this year and people advocating cross-humanoid relationships and marital rights than there is this transage nonsense.

As far as the weirdness about hockey players and being assassinated for not acknowledging LGBTQA+ rights, couples, or identities… It’s simply answered by saying if you personally have an issue with homosexuality, then that’s your thing. But “your thing” does not a public policy make.

Tropical Wilds said:

Like saying gay marriage would lead to people marrying their cars or their pets or gender identity would lead to people declaring themselves royalty and trying to collect the perks. It’s hysterical what-if pearl clutching and nothing more.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on the outrage farming, imo modern journos have done more damage to their own credibility than any outside force through their usage of tweets as sources in order to write an article. However, you're fundamentally missing the point with this quote above. The issue is not that people will marry their pets or cars, it's that the justification used for homosexuality also allowed for this behaviour. If I was to suggest to you instead of these spurious examples something like polygamy, how would argue against it if I was to use the same justification for homosexual marriage? Namely that 'love is love' or 'a preference for sodomy is genetic like heterosexual intercourse and therefore homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals'. The entire foundation for justifying moral sexual behaviour is demolished and your calling it 'pearl-clutching' instead of seeing the issue at hand that this 'pearl-clutching' represents does nothing but exacerbate the intensity of the discourse by dismissing points of view instead of saying why they're wrong.

I'm old enough to remember when what is now that great big alphabet of sexes and genders was just Ls and Gs, like in name of advocacy group PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). Then the Bs got added, and then even more recently the Ts. And now as you can see above, there's even more stuff added. Maybe it'll keep growing until literally everyone on the face of the planet has some label from it affixed to them, so we can all stop being expected to keep up with this increasingly unwieldy initialism.

The fight for gay and lesbian recognition in mainstream society may go back quite some time, but to pretend like the recognition of LGBTQIP2SAA+ etc., etc. as a coalition for political and social reasons is something that is not extremely new is just disingenuous. I mean, I only turned 40 about six months ago, and everything I've described so far has occurred within my living memory. As recently as when I was in high school, DOMA was the law of the land (signed into law by the very liberal and, um, 'sex positive' Bill Clinton), and the idea that anyone anywhere would be performing 'gay marriages' for anything other than political reasons (which would not be taken seriously by anyone) in places like San Francisco or other gay hotspots was absolutely insane. And I say that as someone who grew up less than 100 miles outside of San Francisco and never had any kind of homophobia modelled in my little community. Heck, PFLAG came to my school in about 1993 or so to remind us (ages 11-12 or so) to not call things we don't like 'gay', or to use words like 'sissy' or 'girlyman' as insults (Hans and Franz from SNL were very popular back then...), and no parents protested or wrote angry letters to the local paper about the 'pro-gay agenda' of the local school or whatever. So I don't think it's in any way homophobic to recognize the reality of how things actually were, or that things have changed an incredible amount in a very short period of time (particularly since the height of the HIV-AIDS crisis in the 1990s; I think I would point to the mainstream popularity of films like Philadelphia and stories like the life story of Ryan White as doing a lot to change peoples' minds at that time about how they approached AIDS as a disease, and in the case of the film, gay people in particular).

Tranquil Bondservant said:

I'm with you on the outrage farming, imo modern journos have done more damage to their own credibility than any outside force through their usage of tweets as sources in order to write an article. However, you're fundamentally missing the point with this quote above. The issue is not that people will marry their pets or cars, it's that the justification used for homosexuality also allowed for this behaviour. If I was to suggest to you instead of these spurious examples something like polygamy, how would argue against it if I was to use the same justification for homosexual marriage? Namely that 'love is love' or 'a preference for sodomy is genetic like heterosexual intercourse and therefore homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals'. The entire foundation for justifying moral sexual behaviour is demolished and your calling it 'pearl-clutching' instead of seeing the issue at hand that this 'pearl-clutching' represents does nothing but exacerbate the intensity of the discourse by dismissing points of view instead of saying why they're wrong.

Click to expand...

The examples above are of course silly, but they were and are invoked as reasons against same-sex relationships. It’s the same level of pearl clutching as “transage-ism.”

In order for the rest your theories in your post to hold water, same-sex relationships and attractions would have to be classified as “wrong.” They are not wrong, they’re just not something you are comfortable with. However, your discomfort is not relevant to the formation of policy based off of intrinsic human rights.

MMXX said:

Several new genders and sexual orientations have come into being lately. That's why it's LGBTQQIP2SAA+ now. There doesn't appear to be any kind of set rule regarding continued additions and variations of gender identity and sexual orientation. At this point I don't see how there could be.

Click to expand...

They haven’t “come into being lately.” They have always been around, however, the degree in which they were acknowledged and respected were not.

iarwain said:

He is saying that things that were considered crazy 20 years ago are mainstream now. And things that sound crazy now might become mainstream 20 years from now (or sooner). Obama said in 2008 that marriage was between a man and a woman. He's be called a bigot for that today. And that isn't even 20 years ago.

Click to expand...

and president Obama would agree what he said was wrong

Tropical Wilds said:

The examples above are of course silly, but they were and are invoked as reasons against same-sex relationships. It’s the same level of pearl clutching as “transage-ism.”

In order for the rest your theories in your post to hold water, same-sex relationships and attractions would have to be classified as “wrong.” They are not wrong, they’re just not something you are comfortable with.

Click to expand...

I disagree, they are wrong. If your morality has it's genesis in biology then you're forced into subjective morality as under a naturalistic framework society come about through beings who evolved. If society is comprised of beings who evolved, then the morals of that society came about through evolution as the individuals in your worldview who determine what morals are acceptable in said society have the origin or cause for their morality due to evolution. Therefore if two societies have morals that appose one another, take the islamic east in regards to homosexuality and the west in regards to it's secular morality for example, which one would be right and why? On what basis can you even disagree if it's due to evolution? Both societies have gotten their morals through evolution so both would be correct and regardless, even if you were to have a reason as to why they their opinion would be wrong according to evolution, you would need to have a reason as to why your morality should be authoritative over theirs.

If what is morally correct is different to each person or society (subjective morality) then everything is personal preference and societal agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them. In order to say certain behaviours are right and should be mandated, or even to ascribe any value to specific behaviours at all, is to require a basis on which these actions and their causes can be evaluated. Which obviously under subjective morality is impossible to construct and in order to do so you would need to assume a moral standard (something not relative).

There is no justification for correct moral stances apart from a transcendent source, without it you're just stating personal preference.

Tropical Wilds said:

However, your discomfort is not relevant to the formation of policy based off of intrinsic human rights.

Click to expand...

On what basis do you claim intrinsic human rights? If it's The Bible or God then homosexuality is condemned as sin in both the Old Testament and New Testament. Human rights don't exist in any Naturalistic or Materialistic paradigm. There's no inherent reason as to why matter matters within them.

MMXX said:

Several new genders and sexual orientations have come into being lately. That's why it's LGBTQQIP2SAA+ now. There doesn't appear to be any kind of set rule regarding continued additions and variations of gender identity and sexual orientation. At this point I don't see how there could be.

Click to expand...

they didn't come into being, hey were always there just not recognized or acknowledged.

I believe C.S. Lewis could see the eventual breakdown of humanity, His Abolition of Man seems to diagnose the symptoms.

A lot of the Rainbow Community are the way they are b/c they were sexually abused as children & are so very against pedophilia. Until the pedos can figure out how to get into the good graces of that community, we are safe.


Transage is a possibility, but I doubt it. I disagree it’s outside the realm of possibility just b/c it seems foreign to us now, or there’s laws against it b/c laws can be changed


Another possibility would be to gradually, very gradually, lower the age of consent. 17 in 10 years, 16 after 10 more, etc. It’s a process. Those who want this stuff play long-game. They would do that by advocating minors understand sex & so can consent. Instead of it being a rape, it’d be loving & gentle. “Love is love”